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

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

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

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

Why is populism rising in developed countries?

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

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

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

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

What happens now that Trump is back?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Reading

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

The end of an era but reason for hope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Impact of Trumponomics 2.0 on Growth and Global Relations

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

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

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

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

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

Plaut then goes on to explain the rise of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1912 as a unifying force for black South Africans against the increasingly oppressive white regime. Key figures like Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo emerged, advocating for more radical tactics and forming alliances with the South African Communist Party (SACP). 

The 1960 Sharpeville massacre in which police fired at unarmed protestors after a stray shot from the crowd fired up resistance to the apartheid regime. Many ANC leaders opted for armed resistance, which was utterly ineffectual but led to a crackdown by the apartheid regime. It banned the ANC and jailed its leaders.

After a few quiet years, the 1970s saw a resurgence of resistance, with white students, including Plaut, supporting the formation of labor unions and the United Democratic Front. These organizations, along with international pressure and the ANC’s armed struggle, contributed to the eventual downfall of apartheid. However, the ANC’s tendency to consolidate power and control other organizations came to the fore, raising concerns about its commitment to truly democratic principles.

To its credit, the ANC represented all ethnicities and stood for equality for all. It opposed discrimination and championed democracy. The post-apartheid South Africa has had many challenges, but the values of democracy, rule of law and freedom of expression run strong. The history of a prolonged independence struggle against colonialism makes South Africa resilient and gives us reason for optimism regarding the future.

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

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

The post Making Sense of South Africa’s Rich History appeared first on Fair Observer.

The war’s impact on Europe has been significant. Heightened energy prices have affected countries heavily reliant on Russian gas, such as Germany. European nations have also diverted resources and attention toward Ukraine and away from other crucial areas like social spending and healthcare. Most fundamentally, the war has shattered the last remnants of trust between the East and West, leading many European nations to up their defense budgets in anticipation of a potential direct conflict with Russia.

Switzerland in the middle of an increasingly anxious Europe

Reflecting this defensive attitude, EU High Representative Josep Borrell said that Europe is a garden and the rest of the world is a jungle. Germany has closed its borders, apparently to avoid the jungle taking over the garden. Switzerland takes a more moderate approach. While acknowledging migration and integration challenges, the country emphasizes the need for proactive and inclusive migration policies.

Right-wing leaders are in charge in many parts of Europe, like Robert Fico in Slovakia and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party is on the rise, and in France, the National Rally party made a decent dent in the latest parliamentary elections. Switzerland finds the rise of right-wing, anti-immigrant populist movements across Europe to be a cause for concern. Unlike other European countries, though, Switzerland is a decentralized confederation. This offers a degree of resilience against nationalist trends that would seek to dominate politics at the countrywide level. Yet Switzerland remains uneasy about the deeper political and social crises of which the rise of the far right is a manifestation.

Switzerland the investor

In lighter news, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway signed a free trade agreement with India in March. Swiss diplomat Ralf Heckner has received the credit for achieving what the EU, the UK and the US failed to do. The secret of Swiss success is the country’s independent position. As a non-member of major trade blocs, Switzerland has greater flexibility in forging agreements with emerging markets. Additionally, India’s status as a rapidly growing economy and Switzerland’s political commitment to strengthening economic ties played crucial roles in the successful negotiations.

Switzerland is looking east for economic growth, with China and India among its top export markets. However, the country has adopted a cautious approach toward China’s increasingly assertive foreign policy, economic slowdown and challenges faced by private actors. 

Switzerland the peacemaker

As a famously neutral territory for peace talks, Switzerland hosted a summit to resolve Sudan’s ongoing civil war. Yet Sudanese General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of the Sudanese Armed Forces, decided to sit the talks out. Despite his absence from recent negotiations, Switzerland remains committed to facilitating dialogue and humanitarian access.

Switzerland has faced more than one setback in Africa in recent times. The cocoa crop in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana is facing its third tough year in a row. Chocolate-loving and chocolate-producing Switzerland may need to diversify its cocoa supply chain and include more suppliers from Latin America, with which it maintains cordial relations.

Finally, remaining in the Western Hemisphere, Switzerland views the current state of American democracy with concern, particularly regarding the deep political polarization and potential challenges to the peaceful transfer of power. The US is the preeminent global superpower, and uncertainty about its future direction adds to instability everywhere.

To manage these risks, Switzerland has adopted a flexible and open-minded approach, maintaining communication channels with both major political parties in the US. This proactive strategy ensures continued cooperation and stability in its relationship with the global superpower, regardless of the election outcome.

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

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

The post A Swiss Perspective on World Affairs Today appeared first on Fair Observer.

At the heart of the conflict is the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, a hydroelectric project on the Blue Nile. Ethiopia’s dam construction has angered Egypt, which sees it as a threat to its water supply. The Nile is crucial for Egypt, providing nearly all its water resources. While Ethiopia argues that the dam is solely for electricity generation and won’t significantly impact water flow, Egypt still needs to be convinced. This dispute has deep historical roots, reflecting long-standing power dynamics between the two nations.

The region’s history is marked by conflicts and shifting alliances. In the 1970s, Cold War dynamics played out in the Horn of Africa, with the United States and Soviet Union supporting opposing sides. The Ogaden War between Ethiopia and Somalia in 1977–1978 was a significant event, resulting in a Somali defeat that still resonates today. These historical conflicts have shaped current relationships and tensions between countries in the region.

Countries of the Horn of Africa. Via Zeremariam Fre (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has ambitious plans for his country, including rebuilding the capital and reestablishing Ethiopia’s access to the sea. This vision includes developing a port in Somaliland, a move that has angered Somalia. Ethiopia’s potential recognition of Somaliland has further complicated regional dynamics. Meanwhile, Eritrea’s relationship with Ethiopia has cooled.

Involving outside powers adds complexity to the situation. Egypt has begun providing military support to Somalia, potentially countering Ethiopia. The United Arab Emirates plays a significant financial backer in the region, though its exact strategy remains unclear. Other external powers, such as Turkey, India, China and the United States, also have interests in the area, further complicating the geopolitical landscape.

Precarious stability and the global implications of African tensions

The ongoing civil war in Sudan and the instability in South Sudan contribute to the region’s overall volatility. These conflicts have drawn in various international actors, each with their own agendas. The situation in Sudan, in particular, has the potential to impact the broader regional dynamics, especially given its strategic location and historical ties to both Egypt and Ethiopia.

Despite having a significant military presence in Djibouti, the United States is currently preoccupied with other global issues. This relative disengagement from the Horn of Africa’s tensions could allow other actors to fill the power vacuum. A solid mediating force is necessary to avoid escalating regional conflicts.

The situation in the Horn of Africa resembles the complex alliances and tensions that preceded World War I. The interconnected nature of the conflicts, the involvement of multiple regional and global powers and the potential for rapid escalation are concerning parallels. The region’s strategic importance, particularly in maritime trade and geopolitical influence, makes these tensions globally significant.

Looking forward, the stability of the Horn of Africa remains precarious. The combination of historical grievances, current political ambitions and resource disputes creates a volatile mix. The role of external powers, particularly China and the United Arab Emirates, will be crucial in shaping future developments. As global attention remains focused on other crises, the risk of overlooking the simmering tensions in this critical region could have far-reaching consequences for regional and global stability.

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

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

The post Making Sense of Rising Tensions in the Horn of Africa appeared first on Fair Observer.

Periods of inactivity and revival have marked the Quad’s journey. After its initial formation in 2004, the Quad went dormant for several years before reviving in 2017. The Quad’s resurgence in recent years reflects the changing geopolitical landscape and the growing alignment of interests among its members

One of the most significant shifts in the Quad’s focus has been China’s increasing role as a strategic adversary. Although the initial formation did not explicitly aim to counter China, shared concerns about China’s assertiveness have become key factors in the Quad’s recent activities. This alignment on the China issue among the four partners has strengthened the group’s cohesion.

Future prospects and challenges

The Quad has also expanded its agenda to include a wider range of public goods and initiatives. While this expansion demonstrates the group’s versatility, there are concerns about the potential overextension of its focus. Careful calibration and agenda management will be critical for the Quad’s effectiveness in the coming years.

Looking ahead, the Quad faces several challenges and opportunities. The political commitment of each of the four members remains crucial, especially considering the potential for leadership changes through democratic elections in each nation. The group must also navigate the balance between securitization and maintaining its focus on providing regional public goods.

The question of institutionalization looms large for the Quad’s future. Decisions about whether to establish a formal secretariat or maintain a more flexible structure will impact its operations and regional perception. Furthermore, the Quad’s integration with other regional organizations and government agencies among the four partners presents challenges and opportunities for enhanced cooperation.

The Quad’s evolution reflects the dynamic nature of Indo-Pacific geopolitics. Its ability to adapt to changing regional priorities and challenges has been key to its resurgence and continued relevance. As strategic competition with China remains a significant driver, the Quad must balance this focus with its broader agenda of providing public goods and fostering regional cooperation. Delivering tangible benefits to the region and navigating the complex web of bilateral and multilateral relationships in the Indo-Pacific will likely shape the grouping’s future.

As the Quad enters its third decade, its flexibility and responsiveness to regional needs will be crucial in determining its long-term impact on the Indo-Pacific strategic landscape.

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

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

The post The Quad’s Evolution From Providing Public Goods to Security Cooperation appeared first on Fair Observer.

Atul highlights the troubling decline in education across advanced economies like the US and UK, which he believes is undermining public faith in democratic institutions. He scrutinizes the expansion of presidential powers in the US and the governance challenges in France, presenting a case for the rise of elected “monarchies” and unmanageable systems. Atul sees former US President and Republican candidate Donald Trump as a symptom of a broader set of underlying issues within democracies.

Atul stresses the importance of community building, local democracy discussions and envisioning the kind of society we wish to inhabit as essential steps toward addressing systemic problems. He created Fair Observer as one way of furthering these goals. Today’s journalists face an enormous workload that limits their ability to engage in thoughtful reporting. With the rise of self-publishing platforms, diverse perspectives are abundant, yet securing publication in mainstream outlets remains a challenge for new voices.

Atul also shares insightful glimpses into his upbringing in a multilingual, debating family that emphasized factual accuracy and logical consistency, despite its intense and rigorous atmosphere. He reflects on the pressures of academic success and his journey from disdain for rote learning to becoming a champion debater and an influential voice in global discourse.

Atul’s parting advice to young listeners is powerful: hope starts with oneself. He encourages critical thinking, learning from our elders, taking local action, and nurturing an optimistic yet skeptical outlook to improve our democratic systems.

Join us for this thought-provoking episode, where old truths meet new challenges, and personal stories illuminate the path toward a better community and society.

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

The post Atul Singh: Journalism’s Role in Addressing Democratic Decline and Propagating Diverse Perspectives appeared first on Fair Observer.

Harris’s strategy for winning key voter support

During her 2020 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris promoted a progressive platform with proposals for single-payer healthcare, defunding the police and a ban on fracking. Over time, however, she has walked these positions back. Instead of advocating for full single-payer healthcare, she now supports a more gradual approach to expanding access. Her focus on policing has shifted from defunding to reforming practices. On fracking, Harris now backs restrictions rather than a complete ban. Despite these adjustments, she remains dedicated to progressive values, especially in environmental protection and social justice. Still, she risks being labeled a flip-flopper as she attempts to make herself more acceptable for a national audience.

Harris’s path to victory in the upcoming election depends on her ability to appeal to voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada. Voters in these decisive electorates do not necessarily have the same concerns that the average voter does nationwide. While Harris enjoys strong support in blue states like California and New York, she must win over voters in these swing states to secure the presidency. 

The Trump campaign has already launched attacks against Harris, focusing on her record as a prosecutor and her stance on immigration. In response, Harris released an ad highlighting her efforts to pass immigration reform and blamed Trump for obstructing these efforts. However, her role in managing immigration policy for the Biden administration and her previous support for decriminalizing border crossings may make it difficult for her to distance herself from the current administration’s handling of the border, which has drawn fire from both sides of the aisle. This is a big hurdle, as voters currently (and, historically speaking, unusually) rank immigration as their top concern. 

Her exceptional fundraising skills, strong appeal to minority voters and substantial experience as a prosecutor and senator strengthen Harris’s candidacy. However, she faces challenges, including perceived inexperience in foreign policy, a history of staff turnover and concerns about her preparedness and consistency. Addressing these issues will be key to enhancing her campaign’s effectiveness and broadening her appeal.

A progressive vision for change amidst political challenges

If elected, Kamala Harris would champion a progressive agenda emphasizing environmental protection, social justice and healthcare reform. Her focus on climate change would likely drive initiatives to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainable energy. She might pursue reforms in social justice to address systemic inequalities and support marginalized communities. Her healthcare reform efforts could include expanding access and affordability through measures like improving the Affordable Care Act. However, Harris would face significant opposition from Republicans, particularly regarding her proposed tax increases and her foreign policy positions on Israel and Ukraine. Overcoming these challenges will require strategic negotiation and bipartisan cooperation.

There will not be enough money to fulfill every item on the progressive wish list, so Harris will have to prioritize if she is elected. As president, she would likely pick a Green New Deal and single-payer healthcare as spending priorities. It is probable that she would raise takes, especially for specific population segments, to finance these programs. This aligns with her past support for big government programs and her identification as the most liberal senator. 

The election outcome will depend on various factors, including the state of the economy, the effectiveness of campaigning and the candidates’ ability to connect with voters. Harris’s success will hinge on her ability to moderate her progressive stances while still appealing to her base and distancing herself from the Biden administration’s less popular policies. 

The 2024 presidential election promises to be a closely contested race, with Harris facing a formidable opponent in Donald Trump. The outcome will have significant implications for the future of the United States, both domestically and internationally. 

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

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

The post Make Sense of Kamala Harris. With $200+ Million Now, Can She Win? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Risk is not just about numbers but is deeply bound up with individual psychology, group dynamics and cultural factors. Alan shares eye-opening examples, like the long-term risk aversion in job security contrasted with risk-taking in gambling prevalent in Eastern societies. He emphasizes the importance of understanding Eastern societies’ cultural norms and social dynamics in business settings. 

The discussion then takes a personal turn, highlighting how Alan’s approach to risk has influenced his personal life, contrasting his logical mindset with his artist wife’s different approach to risk. Alan also reflects on a childhood encounter with a Holocaust survivor, shaping his lifelong stance against authoritarianism.

For university students, Alan underscores the essence of curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge as the core purpose of higher education. He shares practical advice on embracing and learning from unpleasant realities.

Alan Waring’s extensive experience—from corporate audits in Europe to cultural change initiatives in China—provides a unique lens through which he views the world of risk. His perspectives are not just for risk professionals but for anyone wanting to navigate the complexities of our global society.

Tune in to this episode to gain valuable insights from Alan’s vast expertise and learn how to navigate the ever-evolving landscape of risk in both personal and professional realms.

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

The post Risk, Curiosity and Authoritarianism: Alan Waring’s Global Insights appeared first on Fair Observer.

Vice President Kamala Harris has succeeded Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee. She rapidly amassed broad support from donors and party leaders. Still, although the party is trying to broadcast a message of unity, the struggle between party leaders has revealed a cleft between factions.

On the Republican side, Trump survived a brush with death after an assassin’s bullet missed his skull. A million-dollar photograph of Trump, bleeding from his right ear, pumping his fist with Old Glory in the background has galvanized Republicans. Trump’s popularity increased further after the Republican National Convention, which resonated with his core base. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and the Winklevoss brothers pledged significant financial support.

Trump has selected Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate. The inclusion of the Ohio native and author of the bestselling memoir Hillbilly Elegy strengthens his appeal among working-class voters. Vance, whose wife has Telugu roots, may also pull in support from parts of the Indian diaspora. This will be still more important now that the Democratic candidate is an Indian-American.

Personality, policy and identity politics

Harris is doing well in the polls, but popularity is not everything. In the US, the candidate who wins the most votes does not win, but rather the candidate who wins the most electors, which are decided state-by-state. This means that votes in solidly Republican and Democratic states have little influence on the outcome. Instead, a few key swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and possibly Arizona or Nevada will be decisive. Doing well in national polls does not necessarily translate to doing well in these heterogeneous regions scattered across the country. The candidates’ success depends on appealing to voters in these states, focusing on issues such as the economy, immigration, and social concerns.

Voters identify economic concerns, particularly inflation and the cost of living, as key issues influencing their decisions. Across party lines, pundits expect immigration to play a significant role. While social issues like abortion and green energy matter to specific voter segments, economic issues will likely be the primary focus of the election.

Aside from policy, however, personality and identity politics will also have their impact on the election. Trump’s bombastic, controversial and idiosyncratic personality and Harris’s multicultural appeal as a Indian- and black american could influence voter perceptions. The candidates’ positions on issues like Israel and India could also affect their support among specific diaspora communities.

Despite Trump’s modest current advantage in the polls, the recent changes in the Democratic landscape make the outcome hard to predict. Harris faces challenges regarding her track record and perceived weaknesses. Still, he has shown an ability to secure funding and unite the Democratic base. The candidates’ ability to address key issues and mobilize voters in crucial swing states will determine the outcome of a probably closely contested election.

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

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

The post Making Sense of the Mad 2024 American Election appeared first on Fair Observer.

After their initial arrival, the settlers of New England developed an identity separate both from the native population of North America and from their English kin back home.

King Philip’s War (1675–1678) pitted the Puritans and their indigenous allies against a Native American alliance led by Metacomet (aka Philip). The significance of this war is often overlooked. It marked a turning point in relations between the colonists and natives. The war, which was the result of rising tensions and misunderstandings, inflicted terrible losses on both sides, and it cemented a sense of “otherness” that would shape future interactions. This conflict contributed to a more rigid Anglo-Saxon identity among the colonists.

As time passed in the colonies, the ongoing struggle for supremacy between England (subsequently Britain) and France also played a crucial role in the lead-up to the American Revolution. Both European powers controlled large territories in North America. English colonists relied heavily on the mother country for protection against French incursions, but after British victory in the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), this dependence diminished. The subsequent imposition of taxes by the crown, intended to offset war debts, became a major point of contention and fueled resentment among colonists who lacked representation in Parliament.

Formative political events back home, like the English Civil War (1642–1651) and the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689) exerted their influence on colonial society. The colonists, many of whom were religious dissenters and non-conformists, found common cause with the anti-authoritarian sentiments that emerged from these conflicts. Likewise, the writings of Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, who championed individual rights and limited government, resonated deeply in the colonies and provided an intellectual framework for their grievances against the Crown.

Finally, the emergence of a uniquely American culture, distinct from its English roots, further contributed to the growing divide. The American emphasis on individual liberty and self-governance, fostered by distance from Britain and the challenges of frontier life, created a sense of identity that clashed with the hierarchical and paternalistic structures of English society.

Eventually, this new identity found political expression in the movement for independence. As grievances against British rule mounted, the settlers utilized covert action and propaganda to mobilize resistance. Groups like the Sons of Liberty employed disinformation tactics and staged showpiece events to galvanize public opinion against the British. One such event was the infamous Boston Massacre, in which a mob of a few hundred Americans pelted a group of nine nervous British soldiers with projectiles until they opened fire, killing five people.

American identity, as distinct from British identity, was now self-consciously promoted. Yet the revolution was the result of a complex interplay of historical, cultural and ideological factors that was outside of any individuals’ control. Situated between two colonial empires and native tribes at a time of shifting loyalties and new ideologies, Americans gradually emerged as a distinct nation.

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

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

The post How American Identity Evolved From the Mayflower to 1776 appeared first on Fair Observer.

Oweidat’s book, Reform and Its Perils in Contemporary Islam, focuses on Nasir Hamid Abu Zayd, a well-known Islamic philosopher who pushed for a more liberal and democratic interpretation of Islam. His perspective truly spoke to her.

Oweidat’s work sheds light on the difficulties faced by those who question traditional Islamic views and the challenges of blending faith with modern life in the Muslim world. Focusing on Abu Zayd was a bold move. His work was complex and controversial, and many scholars advised her against it. However, Abu Zayd’s strong belief in an Islam that supports liberal democratic norms, human rights, and personal freedoms resonated deeply with Oweidat. She saw him as a kindred spirit who, like her, wanted to find a way to make faith and modernity work together.

Both brilliance and hardship marked Abu Zayd’s life as a scholar. Born in 1943 and growing up poor in rural Egypt, he was a gifted learner, memorizing the Quran by age eight. Despite his family pushing him towards a more practical career, Abu Zayd never lost his passion for Islamic thought. He kept studying while working as a telecommunications civil servant, eventually getting his PhD and becoming a professor of Islamic thought at Cairo University.

Abu Zayd’s life illustrates both the intellectual rigor required and the personal sacrifices involved in advocating for reform. His commitment to intellectual honesty and a more liberal interpretation of Islam led to severe backlash from conservative scholars and clerics. He eventually had to flee Egypt and seek refuge in the Netherlands due to persecution and accusations of apostasy.

The future of Islamic reform amidst socio-political challenges

Oweidat distinguishes between Islamic modernism, which seeks to reconcile faith with modern values, and political Islam, which aims to impose Islamic law on all aspects of society. Abu Zayd opposed political Islam, viewing it as a threat to personal freedoms and the true spirit of Islam. 

According to Oweidat, reforming Islamic thought faces two major roadblocks: outdated ideas and a hostile socio-political climate. Reformers such as Abu Zayd face the daunting challenge of reinterpreting Islamic texts, which have served as justifications for oppressive practices for centuries. They contend with deeply ingrained beliefs and traditions that are difficult to change. Additionally, the socio-political environment is often hostile to reform. Authoritarian regimes, conservative religious institutions, and extremist groups make it very difficult to spread and gain acceptance for reformist ideas.

When asked about the future of Islam, Oweidat admits it’s uncertain. She emphasizes the significance of individual choices and decisions made by governments and societies in shaping how Islamic thought evolves. Thanks in part to social media, there is a growing diversity of voices within the Muslim world.

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

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

The post Reform and Its Perils in Contemporary Islam appeared first on Fair Observer.

Amra shares poignant personal experiences, including letters from those touched by her work, which fuel her relentless drive to make a difference. She recounts her family’s struggles and triumphs through the persecution of Bosnian Muslims, the harsh realities of war and even her brother’s battle with Marfan syndrome. As a survivor, she discusses how her experiences continue to influence her life from parenting to education.

Amra advocates for addressing difficult subjects in the classroom to prevent students from turning to radical ideologies. She stresses the importance of constructively addressing grievances to avoid destructive outcomes fueled by hate — especially pressing given the current climate of extremism in the US.

Amra’s timely book Three Summers sheds light on the transition from innocent childhood to the harsh realities of violence and hate. This groundbreaking work is making a difference by fostering understanding and compassion in our society.

We hope that Amra’s resilience and dedication to fostering compassion will leave you motivated to make a positive impact in your own community as well as equip yourself with the insights and tools needed to address challenging subjects with children and adults alike.

Don’t miss this powerful episode that will challenge your perspectives and inspire you to take action in your own life.

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

The post Acclaimed Author Amra Sabic-El-Rayess: Genocide Survivor and Educator on Compassion appeared first on Fair Observer.

Located in the South Pacific, the islands became a part of France in 1853. French arrivals — including many deported prisoners — lived alongside the native Kanaks. During the 1970s and 1980s, the Kanaks saw population growth that boosted their share of the electorate and, thus, their political aspirations. They have advocated for increased autonomy and even independence from France.

Many Kanaks are discontented because they feel excluded from the territory’s recent economic growth, driven by the expansion of the nickel industry. This industry has made many French entrepreneurs rich and employed a new population of workers from Southeast Asia but largely left the natives behind.

The Kanaks’ population growth stagnated, even declining between 2009 and 2014. They now constitute 41% of the island’s population, well short of a majority. However, they have increased political influence because the electoral law restricts voting to Kanaks and others, including the island’s ethnic French population, who have been in the islands for a long time; it excludes the new French arrivals and Asian workers who have come with the nickel boom. Now, the government in Paris has threatened to change this settlement with a proposal to extend voting rights in provincial elections to French residents who have lived on the island for at least ten years.

The French government acknowledges the Kanaks’ aspirations for local autonomy but maintains that the proposed changes are a matter of fairness. The ‎Élysée argues that individuals who live in New Caledonia and contribute to its economy should have a say in its governance. Some New Caledonians do support this perspective, arguing that all island residents, not just its indigenous population, should determine the island’s future. Yet disgruntled New Caledonians have taken to the streets, with some even going as far as erecting barricades and looting to show the government their discontent.

The latest chapter in a long history

The current political crisis is not an isolated incident. It is the latest manifestation of long-standing tensions between the Kanaks and the French government over the island’s future. These tensions have erupted into violence before, notably in the 1980s and 1990s, when clashes between Kanak independence activists and French security forces resulted in significant unrest.

The Nouméa Accord of 1998 was the culmination of a series of agreements reached in the late 1980s and 1990s. This accord outlined a path towards greater autonomy for New Caledonia and included provisions for three referendums on independence. The first two referendums, held in 2018 and 2020, resulted in narrow victories for the pro-France side. However, the pro-independence Kanaks boycotted the third referendum in 2021, citing concerns about the process’s fairness due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their community.

These most recent proposed changes to voting laws have reignited the debate over New Caledonia’s future and its relationship with France. The Kanaks perceive these changes as a betrayal of the Nouméa Accord’s spirit, which they believe paved the way for their eventual independence. The French government, on the other hand, maintains that the changes are necessary to ensure fair representation for all residents of the island.

Strategic importance and economic value further complicate the situation in New Caledonia. The island holds 10% of the world’s nickel resources, a critical component in the production of batteries for electric vehicles and other technologies. This makes New Caledonia a valuable asset for France, both economically and geopolitically.

What will the ‎Élysée do next?

President Emmanuel Macron, leading the French government, has expressed his commitment to fostering dialogue and finding a political solution to the crisis. In June, he decided to halt the proposed reforms. Yet Paris’s long-term goals for the island territory remain uncertain.

Kanaks continue to deeply distrust the French government’s intentions. They view the suspended proposed voting law changes as the latest attempt to undermine their aspirations for self-determination and maintain French control over the island.

The situation in New Caledonia serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by indigenous populations around the world in their struggle for self-determination. It also highlights the complex and often fraught relationship between former colonial powers and their overseas territories. As the global community watches, the people of New Caledonia and the French government must chart a path forward that respects the rights and aspirations of all involved.

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

The post Making Sense of the Trouble in New Caledonia appeared first on Fair Observer.

Matthew explains that fascism today isn’t limited to its historically violent and militant expressions. Politicians like Donald Trump are seen as embracing a post-fascist type of politics, influencing both the Overton window and extremist ideologies.

At the same time, Matthew emphasizes the importance of understanding the spectrum of ideologies that exist between conservatism and fascism and the dangers of diluting the term “fascism.” The misuse and overuse of the term can lead to a loss of its historical significance and moral lessons. A critical, well-informed approach to contemporary events is necessary to avoid the dangers of historical amnesia.

Recent events in the US and Europe, notably the 2011 Norway attacks and other similar incidents, underscore the alarming rise of fascist terrorism. Matthew discusses the adaptive nature of this threat and its challenges in terms of identification and response.

Education and historical awareness are key to recognizing and combating extremist ideologies. We must beware politicization of education and the resulting impact on research and public understanding. Extremist narratives and literature drive the process of radicalization. Understanding the words and texts that inspire extremist actions is crucial in countering these dangerous ideologies.

Matthew also touches upon the need for a humanitarian approach, distinguishing between harmful right-wing populism and genuine threats to democracy and freedom. He emphasizes the importance of preparedness for potentially receiving asylum seekers fleeing fascist crackdowns.

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

The post Fascism, Politics and Terrorism: Lessons From History With Matthew Feldman appeared first on Fair Observer.

In reality, the Mayflower settlers were neither saints nor demons but ordinary people. Some of them were Puritan Protestants seeking religious freedom; others were adventurers seeking their fortune in a new land.

The Puritans established a tradition of self-rule

Prior to landing at the coast of Massachusetts in 1620, the passengers of the Mayflower established a system of governance to ensure order. The resulting Mayflower Compact sought to control the more unruly elements by bringing them into a framework of orderly, yet democratic, rule. It established a foundation for creating laws and electing leaders from among the community. The compact became a cornerstone of American political thought and was a forerunner to the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. It sought to bring about law and order while also encapsulating a tradition of questioning authority and valuing individual rights.

Former CIA officer and frequent Fair Observer contributor Glenn Carle is a descendant of the Mayflower settlers. His ancestor, Stephen Hopkins, was one of the “adventurers” whom the Puritans viewed with suspicion. He had a history of challenging authority: After a previous voyage shipwrecked on then-uninhabited Bermuda, Hopkins attempted to foment a mutiny. (According to some theories, this incident may have influenced William Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest.) Hopkins’ presence was probably one of the main motivations behind the formation of the compact to control the settlers.

America’s violent history stretches back to the Puritans

As progressive and individualistic a document as the compact may have been at the time, however, it was still highly exclusive. It valued the essential equality of a king and a peasant, but only a white, Christian peasant. Native Americans were considered savages, beyond the pale of civilization and not members of the community that democracy was meant to embrace.

At times, the Puritans carried out wars of extermination against the Native Americans. In one example, the Puritans felt their position precarious and threatened by the neighboring Pequot tribe, so they slaughtered the Pequots nearly to a man.

This mixture of Christian idealism and egalitarianism with a capacity for racial exclusion and extreme violence would come to shape the American political way for centuries to come. Even today, Americans who trace their descent to southern and eastern Europe, Asia and Africa are inheritors of this tradition, whether or not they share the Protestant religion or count the Puritans as their ancestors.

The Puritans’ story, with its complexities and contradictions, continues to resonate in the American consciousness. It shapes the nation’s identity and values, its commitment to individual liberty and the ongoing need to confront the darker chapters of its past.

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

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The post A New Telling of the Old Story of America appeared first on Fair Observer.

Differing views on Russia within NATO

Not all NATO members share the same perception of Russia. While some Eastern European countries, like Poland, perceive Russia as a direct threat and advocate for a stronger military presence, others, like Hungary, adopt a more balanced approach, prioritizing diplomacy and national interests. This divergence in viewpoints highlights the complexities within the alliance and the challenges of reaching a unified stance on Russia.

The varying perspectives on Russia also reflect the influence of historical experiences. Countries like Poland, which suffered under Soviet rule, harbor deep-rooted fears and advocate for a more assertive approach toward Russia. In contrast, countries with less traumatic histories, or those prioritizing economic ties, may lean more towards diplomacy and cooperation.

The debate over NATO’s role and the perception of Russia extends beyond Eastern Europe. Western European powers, including Germany, France and the UK, have unique worldviews influencing their foreign policies towards Russia. Germany has frequently supported Eastern European nations and sided with the US because of historical guilt. At the same time, France has traditionally sought a more balanced approach, maintaining dialogue with Russia while supporting Ukraine. On the other hand, the UK has historically been more aligned with the US and has taken a stronger anti-Russia stance.

Recent developments, such as France’s consideration of sending troops to Ukraine and the UK’s training of Ukrainian soldiers, indicate a potential shift in the alliance’s dynamics. France’s position suggests a growing alignment with Eastern European nations, calling for a more assertive approach in light of its losses in Africa and the perceived threat posed by Russian mercenaries. The UK’s actions reflect its historical grievances with Russia and its close alliance with the US.

Economic Woes Hinder Defense Spending in Europe

The economic and political challenges European countries face further complicate NATO’s decision-making. Many European nations grapple with economic downturns, rising inflation and unbalanced budgets. The need to prioritize economic growth and social services may limit their willingness to increase defense spending or commit additional resources to military interventions.

Its members’ differing priorities and security concerns exemplify NATO’s complexities. Turkey, a NATO member, has played a complex role in the Ukraine conflict, balancing its support for Ukraine with economic deals with Russia. People have raised concerns about Turkey’s reliability as an ally and its potential influence on NATO’s decisions.

NATO can solidify its future by overcoming internal divisions and forging a common approach. Navigating varying perceptions of Russia, balancing member priorities and adapting to a shifting geopolitical landscape are crucial tasks. As the world becomes increasingly multipolar, NATO’s role and effectiveness will face new challenges. The alliance must demonstrate agility in adapting to these challenges while ensuring its core principles of collective defense and security cooperation remain robust.

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

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

The post Establishing Unity Within NATO by Bridging the Divide appeared first on Fair Observer.

India’s elections operate in five-year cycles. In 2019, the Modi-led BJP won 303 seats and formed the government on its own. Modi emerged as an all-powerful leader who ran the country like a CEO. This time, the BJP won 63 fewer seats than in 2019. More importantly, Modi had declared “Abki Baar, 400 Paar” (“This Time, Over 400”) and set a target of 400 seats for the BJP. Clearly, Modi and the BJP fell quite a bit short.

The Modi-led BJP is part of a coalition named the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which has many smaller regional parties. Alone, the BJP falls short of the magic figure of 272 in the Lok Sabha, but the NDA coalition has won 293 seats, enabling the BJP to form a government. As a result, Modi has won a historic third term. Only Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, won a third term as prime minister before; Modi has definitely made history.

However, Modi’s victory is Pyrrhic. He set expectations so high that the reduced NDA majority feels like a defeat. How did India’s popular high-flying, first backward caste prime minister come crashing down to earth?

In a nutshell, the Modi government lost touch after ten years in power. The BJP — literally the “People of India Party” — was a grassroots movement for decades. Note that the opposition Indian National Congress (INC), is a top-down dynastic party. It is ruled by the Nehru family with fifth-generation Rahul Gandhi, Jawaharlal’s great-grandson, in charge. Also, the INC ruled India for most of the period from its independence in 1947 to Modi’s historic victory in 2014. In contrast, the BJP has a long tradition of internal party democracy.

The BJP is a Hindu nationalist party, which was largely formed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, literally National Volunteer Organization). They have been called India’s fascist khaki shorts but they are really the Hindu version of Jesuits. Largely single men, disproportionately from humble Brahmin families, spend their lives as community organizers. They are headquartered in Nagpur, a city in western Maharashtra that is geographically almost the center of India.

Historically, the BJP has relied on the RSS cadre to turn out the vote. This ground game has given the party an organizational edge in Indian politics. Modi’s popularity led him to sideline the RSS, state-level BJP leaders and even local party workers. Emulating the Nehru family model, Modi began appointing favorites and former bureaucrats to top positions such as ministers in his cabinet and chief ministers of BJP-run states. In short, Modi, his number two, Home Minister Amit Shah, and the BJP president Jagat Prakash “J. P.” Nadda have grown out of touch with their own party base. This top-down model cost the BJP heavily in these elections, particularly in the north and the northwestern Hindi heartland of Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (UP). 

In a move reminiscent of Aesop’s “Goatherd and the Wild Goats,” Modi ignored his traditionally loyal upper caste base to make populist overtures to the lower castes. Modi offered them a cereal dole (five kilograms of wheat or rice every month), cooking gas and other goodies. However, Rahul Gandhi promised rather generous monthly cash transfers. All parties are now engaging in a race of competitive populism that the Modi-led BJP can’t win. So, the BJP lost some lower caste and class votes while alienating the middle and upper castes and classes, who pay most of India’s taxes.

Modi alienated upper castes and state parties

In UP, the most populous Indian state, and neighboring Rajasthan, Modi turned off upper-caste Rajputs and Brahmins with his high-handed style of leadership. For example, he declined to give tickets to the candidates chosen by popular UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a Rajput, and instead ran outsiders and even turncoats from other parties. Rajasthanis and UP walas disapprove of the Gujarati elite ordering them around like peons. So, many of them stayed home when it came time to vote.

Local party leaders feel that they have no opportunity to move up, as Modi and Shah have filled the top spots with bureaucrats. While they may not have exactly turned against Modi, they were less incentivized to whip up their voters very enthusiastically. The Modi government’s new Agnipath scheme — army soldiers are recruited for only four years and only 25% of them are retained — proved enormously unpopular in these states, which provide large numbers of large soldiers. The fact that the Modi government did not follow a consultative approach angered many traditional BJP voters who sat out the elections in protest.

Modi, Shah and Nadda not only got the Hindi heartland strategy wrong but they also erred in their southern strategy. In Maharashtra, home of India’s financial capital, Mumbai, the BJP earned enormous ill will by turning against its ideological cousin, the Shiv Sena. This Marathi Hindu nationalist party that venerates Chhatrapati Shivaji, the local leader who began the demise of the mighty Mughal Empire, has been a natural BJP ally for decades. Note that the RSS headquarters are in Maharashtra too. So, this family feud cost the BJP dear. The BJP compounded this error by welcoming highly corrupt local leaders into the party and losing credibility as a result.

In Tamil Nadu, the BJP could have entered an alliance with All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), a local party that has historically been a part of the NDA. Instead, the BJP decided to fight the elections alone. As a result, both the BJP and the AIADMK were wiped out in the state. 

In short, Modi falsely believed that he was so popular that he could rely on his national brand to win votes without relying on the RSS, state party leaders, local BJP workers, regional parties and caste constituencies. The disappointing result has proven Modi’s presidential model of politics wrong.

Modi underperformed among lower castes and classes

In Modi’s defense, he has presided over ten years of competent administration, infrastructure investment, India, and economic success. Why did India’s poor not vote en bloc for the prime minister? Yes, 810 million Indians are getting free food grains and many others have benefited greatly from Sanatan Socialism, which is Modi’s version of the socialism India adopted after 1947. This means less theft by intermediaries and more targeted delivery of benefits. However, this does not mean more jobs. Economic growth rates might be high but so is unemployment. In fact, Modi’s 2016 demonetization of high currency notes destroyed small industries and the informal sector, worsening the jobs crisis. Hence, many poor voters whose expectations have risen in the last ten years turned away from Modi.

The lives of Muslim voters, many of whom are poor, have improved under Modi’s administration. In particular, Muslim women have benefited from Modi’s welfare programs and banning of triple talaq, the practice by which a Muslim man could divorce his wife by saying “divorce” thrice. Yet Modi’s inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric turned off Muslims who overwhelmingly voted strategically for candidates best placed to beat the BJP.

Simultaneously, the INC-led opposition appealed brilliantly to Dalits, the lowest castes in Indian society. Since independence, India has expanded a constitutionally enshrined policy of affirmative action to promote social justice in a historically stratified society. The opposition spread the rumor that the BJP would change the constitution and roll back reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. No political party in India would dare do such a thing because demography is destiny in a democracy. The Dalits and the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) — who are poor, but not quite as poor as the Dalits — form a majority of the vote, and the BJP does not want to commit political suicide. Yet the charge stuck.

In UP, the OBCs and the Dalits have had a fraught relationship. After independence, the INC used to rely on the Brahmin-Muslim-Dalit (BMD) alliance to win votes in North India. Over time the Brahmins left for the BJP, the Muslims started voting for regional parties and the Dalits flocked to their own parties. Thanks to the INC and the Samajwadi Party allying in UP, the Muslims, Yadavs (arguably, the most powerful of the OBCs) and Dalits voted together for the first time in decades. The Samajwadi Party won 37 and the INC six out of UP’s 80 seats. They had won five and one respectively in 2019. The BJP fell from 62 to 33 seats in UP in these elections. The Bahujan Samajwadi Party, a Dalit party in UP, went from ten seats in 2019 to zero this time around. Whoever wins UP has a good shot at running India and the BJP lost in India’s most populous state.

Modi is still prime minister but losses in UP and Maharashtra are big blows. His power not only in the country but also within the party is now greatly diminished.

What happens next?

What does this result mean for Modi, for the BJP, for India, and for its international partners and adversaries?

For the moment, there will not be a major policy shift. Modi has kept his cabinet unchanged, although Nadda will step down as party president. The government though weakened will carry on much as usual for now. However, the party will go through a period of soul-searching. The RSS and the BJP still have a strong will to power. They are already seeking to improve feedback loops and communication with various stakeholders. Obviously, this includes business leaders. More open channels could potentially prevent missteps like Modi’s poorly thought-out  2016 demonetization mentioned earlier.

The third Modi government is likely to push public infrastructure investment less aggressively. While this investment is necessary and will pay dividends for decades into the future, it also has a tendency to crowd out private investment. In Modi’s third term, there should be greater private investment and even consumption, creating new opportunities for US, Japanese and other foreign businesses. The French luxury sector, as well as Swiss businesses —  following Bern’s recent massive free trade agreement with Delhi — are also likely to do well in India.

Also, India will need to look for new sources of arms imports because Russia and Israel are both preoccupied with their own wars. France is likely to emerge as a big supplier, as it places fewer restrictions on its arms than the US does. 

China may see a weakened Indian government as an opportunity to put further pressure on India in the Himalayas or the Maldives. Conversely, China may also decide that now is the time for détente. This decision lies with Beijing and we will have to watch the smoke signals at Zhongnanhai carefully.

As far as Modi is concerned, he remains prime minister for now. However, political leaders both in the BJP and in other parties will be out for his blood. The INC may woo away one of Modi’s coalition partners by offering the leaders of regional parties the position of the prime minister. The INC has broken coalitions before and regional leaders might want their names in the national history books, even if they become prime ministers for just a month or two. 

The bottom line is that Indian democracy is far healthier than what many Western and Indian pundits proclaim. These observers had been sounding the alarm bells about Hindu fascism and democratic backsliding in India. Many treated a Modi supermajority as inevitable. However, Indian voters proved these Chicken Littles wrong.

Like Indira Gandhi, Modi is a powerful prime minister, but he is not powerful enough to control elections. Indian voters have shown they remain in charge. Furthermore, BJP leaders, workers and voters have shown that Modi is not even in charge of his own party. Today, as it has for three quarters of a century, India’s big, messy democracy is still going strong.

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

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

The post Making Sense of India’s Mammoth Elections and Their Startling Results appeared first on Fair Observer.

Japan is growing richer and more confident. Thus, the island nation is becoming increasingly assertive abroad. It is flexing its economic muscles, deepening relationships with Western firms and pouring investments into Africa. Tokyo is simultaneously staking out a foreign policy independent from Washington’s. The Kantei has been more proactive in isolating China than the White House has been. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Japan, US, Australia and India) was Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s brainchild. Recently, Tokyo called the independence of Taiwan an issue of Japanese national security.

In parallel, Japan is shifting its military posture from defense to offense. Tokyo is doubling its military budget over a five-year period. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is developing two aircraft carriers. These warships are useful, not only for defending the homeland, but for projecting power overseas. The Japanese military is also stockpiling billions of dollars’ worth of Tomahawk missiles.

Foreign investments increase

As Japan’s internal economy resurges, it is an increasingly attractive destination for foreign capital. Major American firms like Microsoft, Oracle, Micron and Blackstone have ramped up their investments. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) opened its first plant in the country and has announced plans for a second. Additionally, esteemed British boarding schools Malvern College, Rugby School and Harrow International School have established locations in Japan in recent years. This has led to an influx of foreign students, especially from China.

Japan is making its own investments abroad. The nation has invested approximately $120 billion in Africa, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs promising an additional $30 billion over the next three years. This move boldly counters Chinese influence on the continent. Observers are wary that China’s Belt and Road infrastructure development program is a tool for economic coercion in developing nations.

However, it’s important to note that Japanese investment alone is not enough to outpace China. Japan and the UK are also set to make a joint investment in mining critical minerals like cobalt, lithium, copper and graphite in Africa and Latin America. These raw materials are key as the world transitions toward electric vehicles and renewable energy.

Private investors are also taking notice. The African Development Bank has begun pitching to Japanese investors. Private Japanese trading companies, such as Mitsui and Sumitomo, are now looking to expand their global economic footprint in resource-rich African and Latin American countries.

Shinzo Abe’s faction pushes a more engaged foreign policy

In Japan’s domestic political sphere, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has weathered its party-funding scandal and remains firmly in power until 2025. The LDP, now dominated by the faction of late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is pushing the nation towards greater nationalism and international assertiveness. Historically, Japanese foreign policy had been heavily influenced by US interests. However, the United States’ apparent defense dependability has declined, particularly in light of Donald Trump’s isolationist tendencies. The LDP is asking: How can Japan fend for itself?

Tokyo has found part of the answer in strengthening its regional alliances. Japan negotiated a rapprochement with South Korea and has bolstered strategic relations with India. It has also made repeated pledges to defend Taiwan and even “liberate” it from Chinese aggression if necessary, demonstrating a newfound assertiveness and willingness to deploy units abroad.

Japan remains a close alliance with the US, but it is now cooperating with the US as a sovereign an independent partner, not as a vassal state.

A majority of members in the National Diet now support Japan taking a more active defense role. Late last year, Japan’s Cabinet approved a record $55.9 billion (7.95 trillion yen) defense budget for the 2024 fiscal year — a 16.9% increase from 2023. This amount will increase each year until it reaches $47.7 billion (6.6 trillion yen), making each defense budget until 2027 the highest ever recorded. Anti-militarism has significantly receded, marking a notable shift in the nation. 

This comes amid rising regional threats from North Korea, China, and Russia. Chinese military movements in the East and South China Seas have increased, North Korea continues to test its armaments, and most notably, a Russia-China joint fleet conducted a naval exercise circumnavigating Honshu, Japan’s main island. Meanwhile, the US is preoccupied with its own domestic elections and political polarization, which makes it seem less able to protect Japan. These factors have heightened Japan’s threat perception, necessitating a more robust and sovereign defense strategy.

Military Shift from Defense to Offense

Due to increased perceptions and realities of threat, recent military actions in Japan represent revolutionary changes since 1945. From 1952 to 2020, Japan’s military capabilities were limited strictly to defensive weapons that served as complementary support units to US combat fleets. Now, Japan’s defense doctrine has undergone a clear strategic shift, allowing for more offensive actions and weapons. 

There has been a substantial rise in military expenditure from the increased budget. Japan is in the process of building two aircraft carriers, JS Kaga and JS Izumo, set to host 28 F-35 jets. This will not only enhance defense capabilities but also project offensive power overseas. Additionally, Japan has invested $2.3 billion in a deal with the US to purchase 400 Tomahawk missiles. Possession of these long-range missiles allows the island nation to strike targets up to 1,500 miles (2,500 km) away — which can reach deep into mainland China.

Technological advancements in missile interception, radar detection and robotics further bolster Japan’s security and provide valuable support to its allies. 

What’s on the horizon for the Land of the Rising Sun?

Despite these strides, Japan faces enduring challenges. Economically, although interest rates have turned positive, they remain close to zero. The nation is not yet firmly on a growth path. Additionally, it still grapples with high debt and significant demographic issues. An aging population and declining birth rates pose substantial obstacles to labor force growth and economic sustainability.

Japan is in a troubled neighborhood. Its proximity to Russia, North Korea and China heighten the risks of a conflict which could further complicate its strategic plans. 

Yet there are many reasons for hope. Reflecting on the global changes over the past few years, it’s evident that even if Japan itself has not fundamentally altered, the world’s perception of it has, and Japan is taking a new role in it. 

Today, Japan stands as a truly sovereign state for the first time since 1945. The nation is reclaiming a level of autonomy and influence not seen since the 1920s. This newfound sovereignty marks a significant departure from its post-war stance and sets the stage for Japan to play a more prominent role on the global stage. 

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

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

The post Is Japan Now Finally a Sovereign State? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Richard began studying autocracy and democracy during the US President Donald Trump’s administration. He wanted to learn how autocrats use to gain and wield power.

Richard and Fair Observer Editor-at-Large Dr. Rod Berger discuss immigration policies, the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation into possible Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election and autocratic leaders’ responses to global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The discussion turns to the loss of intellectual discourse in the US. The younger generation’s disillusionment with democratic institutions and their pressing concerns about the future. Both educational institutions and familial and societal dialogues can be part of the solution, fostering critical thinking and understanding democratic values. This empowers citizens to combating misinformation and uphold democracy with accurate knowledge.

Throughout the discussion, Richard intertwines his professional research with his personal experiences, painting a vivid picture of the current state of American democracy. Despite the challenges it faces, he also offers a hopeful perspective, emphasizing the resilience of American institutions and the unwavering commitment of individuals dedicated to protecting the rule of law.

Don’t miss out on this enlightening conversation.

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

The post How Autocrats Like Trump Threaten Democracy with UCLA’s Richard Abel appeared first on Fair Observer.

Grappo dismisses conspiracy theories about Israeli or American involvement, citing a lack of motive. The Iranian president holds little real power. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei holds all of the cards, so assassinating a president would do little to change policy.

The president’s death comes at a time of widespread dissatisfaction with the Iranian government. Voter turnout is low; hardliners dominate, and reformers are sorely lacking. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s political armed force, has gained significant political influence lately. Indeed, the IRGC will likely play a crucial role in determining the next Supreme Leader. The 85-year-old Khamenei is rumored to be in poor health.

Uncertainty and instability in the wake of Raisi’s death

Due to Khamenei’s rumored failing health, Iran will need a new president and a new leader. Grappo identifies Acting President Mohammad Mokhber and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who have IRGC ties, as frontrunners for the presidency.

The Supreme Leader’s succession is more complex. Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, is a plausible candidate. However, Iranian political society, which views itself as revolutionary and Republican, has some reservations about hereditary succession. The regime’s talent pool, however, is limited. Loyalty and ideology often overshadow competence.

Related Reading

Iran’s Mahsa Revolution One Year On

Raisi’s death does not signify immediate changes in Iran’s policies, but it creates uncertainty about the country’s future leadership. Grappo predicts a crucial role for the IRGC in maintaining the regime, possibly leading to a military dictatorship.

Grappo discusses Iran’s social and economic challenges, describing a younger generation disillusioned with the regime due to a lack of economic opportunities, social constraints and corruption. While acknowledging the regime’s efforts to improve literacy rates, he points out that this has led to heightened expectations, especially among women, who increasingly oppose the clerics’ restrictions. Grappo parallels the 1979 Revolution, citing corruption and discontent with the ruling elite. Iran is a nation on the brink of change.

Caught between a reactionary establishment and an increasingly revolutionary populace, Iran has vast potential. Still, it is globally isolated and dependent on China and Russia. It will have a delicate course to navigate in the coming decades.

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

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

The post What Happens Now That the Iranian President Is Dead? appeared first on Fair Observer.

The bridge collapse plunged Baltimore City and County into traffic chaos, disrupting several critical transportation routes. Over 30,000 daily commuters faced significantly extended commutes as they navigated congested backroads or tackled lengthy detours on the beltway.

The closure also significantly impacted the Port of Baltimore, the third-largest East Coast port by tonnage and the nation’s leader in roll-on/roll-off facilities. Largely halted port operations led to job losses and economic hardship in nearby port communities that rely on these jobs.

Regional, national and global repercussions

The impact of the bridge collapse extended beyond Baltimore’s city limits. Originally destined for Baltimore, the redirection of container traffic led to a surge in cargo activity at ports in neighboring cities like Philadelphia, Newark, New York City and Boston. While this boosted these ports temporarily, Baltimore officials feared losing shipping contracts permanently.

The ongoing US supply chain problems, coinciding with the bridge closure, threatened Baltimore’s growing e-commerce industry with delayed deliveries and potentially higher shipping costs. This added strain could further hinder the national economic recovery.

The closure of the Port of Baltimore, a key player in the global economy, disrupted the movement of goods across various industries. Notably, delays in Baltimore’s coal exports, the second-highest in the United States, raised concerns about potential price increases for major importers like India. Beyond essential goods, the closure also had an impact on Domino Sugar shipments, affecting the food industry, disrupting cruise operations, and rerouting ships to Virginia.

Rebuilding and Strengthening Baltimore’s Port

Baltimore’s efforts to rebuild the collapsed bridge have highlighted the port’s critical role for the city, the region, the nation and the world. Plans are underway to secure federal funding for a stronger bridge and improved surrounding infrastructure to improve traffic flow and allow for larger ships. Additionally, authorities aim to attract and retain a strong workforce by providing fair wages, benefits and reliable transportation options.

Baltimore residents and businesses view the new bridge as a springboard for the port’s resurgence. Through strategic investments in automation and terminal expansion, Baltimore aims to regain its status as a major economic center and succeed in the global market.

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

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

The post The Economic Fallout of Baltimore’s Spectacular Bridge Collapse appeared first on Fair Observer.

James tells the story of how he came to pursue a career in journalism. He sheds light on the complexities of discerning information in today’s climate, emphasizing the importance of information literacy in our schools and communities.

James then takes an in-depth look at the challenges facing the journalism industry, including economic models, corporate influences and the impact of technological advancements such as AI. Rod and James discuss the future of journalism from from media democratization to voice cloning. The next generation of storytellers and journalists will certainly have their work cut out for them, but the reward is worth the challenge.

If you are passionate about the future of journalism, the impact of technology on media, and the evolving dynamics of truth and information, this episode is a must-listen. We hope you find the discussion as thought-provoking and enlightening as we did. 

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

The post Journalism, Propaganda and the Search for Truth with James Dorsey appeared first on Fair Observer.

Unlike the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not have a unified global governance structure. Rather, it is a set of regional churches that share the same theology but have independent (or “autocephalous”) heads, usually called patriarchs. Formally, the boundaries of these regional churches are independent of political borders. However, there is a strong tendency for each independent Orthodox nation to desire its own independent church.

Historically, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, headed by the Metropolitan (senior bishop) of Kyiv, has been under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, headed by the Patriarch of Moscow. After Ukraine declared independence following the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917, Archpriest Vasyl Lypkivsky took the title of “Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine.” He founded the independent “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” (UAOC). The Soviet Union, however, soon absorbed Ukraine, and the UAOC failed to gain a significant following. Neither did the other Orthodox churches worldwide recognize it as legitimate.

Ukrainian aspirations for national and ecclesiastical independence got a second chance after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 1992, Metropolitan Filaret of Kyiv declared independence from Moscow, taking the title of “Patriarch of Kyiv” and founding the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church—Kyiv Patriarchate” (UOC-KP). As with the UAOC, the other Orthodox patriarchs did not recognize the UOC-KP.

Those portions of the Ukrainian Church that remained loyal to Moscow coalesced around a new Metropolitan of Kyiv, Volodymyr, and came to be called the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church—Moscow Patriarchate” (UOC-MP). There are now at least three churches claiming to be the true Ukrainian Church: the UOC-KP, the UOC-MP and the UAOC. For that matter, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, stemming from a 16th-century reunion between the Ukrainian Church and the Roman Catholic Church, makes a fourth.

To the Ukrainian faithful, this amount of confusion was an intolerable situation. For Orthodox Christians, questions of succession and legitimacy are not simply questions of governance. Because they received their own sacramental ordination from their forebears in a line of succession that stretched back to the Apostles and ultimately to Jesus Christ, the bishops could impart grace to the populace through the sacraments. Thus, underlying a question like, “Who is the legitimate bishop of Kyiv?” is the more fundamental question, “How may I be united to Christ?” An illegitimate bishop, on the other hand, is a usurper against Christ and thus endangers the souls of those in his care.

To remedy this situation, representatives of the UOC-KP, the UAOC and parts of the UOC-MP met in a council to negotiate a reunification. They were partly successful. In 2018, they formed the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU). The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople—the most senior patriarch in the Eastern Orthodox Church—granted the OCU his official recognition and released it from its dependence on Moscow. For this affront, the Russian Orthodox Church broke communion with the Church of Constantinople and the other Orthodox churches (Jerusalem, Greece, and Cyprus) that recognized its action. The schism, which had once been internal to the Ukrainian church, thus spread to the entire Eastern Orthodox Church. To the present day, it has not healed.

A look at Ukraine’s wartime religious landscape

The OCU and the UOC-MP became the two main competitors in Ukraine. In 2018, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko supported the OCU as a potential bulwark against Russian interference. Meanwhile, the state looked upon the UOC-MP with suspicion, seeing it as a potential source of Russian influence and even outright treachery.

After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the UOC-MP itself declared full autonomy from Moscow. Thus, neither major Orthodox church in Ukraine officially owed allegiance to the Russian Orthodox Church. However, this did not remove the stigma of disloyalty from the UOC-MP.

Investigative journalist Flavius Mihaies visited Ukraine to assess the situation on the ground. He was fond of people who had endured significant destruction. Ukrainians have lived under two years of missile attacks that have destroyed infrastructure, homes and religious sites as well. This hasn’t stopped their determination to fight. They acknowledge how vital Western military support is, but many are diffident about the speed and amount of it. Similarly, while everyone acknowledges the need to defend the Ukrainian state from an invading foreign power, some have been dissatisfied with that state’s indifference and even hostility in matters of religion.

The Ukrainian state has put heavy, albeit unofficial, pressure on UOC-MP parishes to switch their allegiance to the OCU. UOC-MP parishes may be subject to police searches, looking for signs of collusion with the enemy. In some cases, church buildings have been forcibly taken from the UOC-MP and given to OCU priests. Mihaies reports that many OCU priests perform the liturgy in a mostly empty building. In at least one case, the local UOC-MP community, locked out of its own church, chose to perform the liturgy in a barn.

These people would rather worship standing in the hay than attend an illegitimate liturgy with a priest they do not recognize. To make matters worse, the two churches do not even pray in the same language. The UOC-MP uses the ancient Church Slavonic tongue, a language related to the common ancestor of Polish, Serbian, Ukrainian and Russian. The OCU, on the other hand, uses the modern Ukrainian language, distancing itself from the Russian Orthodox Church, which also uses Church Slavonic.

Yet Mihaies did not find the UOC-MP faithful any less patriotic than their OCU compatriots. Nationalism runs strong here, especially since the state is under attack. The UOC-MP vehemently denies accusations of sympathizing with Russia, and its faithful see themselves as no less Ukrainian than anyone else. Like the members of the OCU, they too fight in the trenches, organize support for the war effort at home and pray for Ukrainian victory.

Mihaies expresses concern about religious freedom in Ukraine. UOC-MP members fear the sidelining or even persecution of their church. The church has complained of violence and forced conversions. For the most part, the international community has failed to take heed. Although the UN has documented a few incidents, there remains a fear of criticizing Ukraine too strenuously. Human rights observers and Western governments do not want to undermine Ukraine or give ammunition to Russian propagandists. The US and its allies tend to take the Ukrainian government line. They accept its official religious freedom policy at face value and are not involved in intra-Orthodox issues.

Mihaies proposes a more nuanced Western approach to Ukraine. We should acknowledge the ongoing religious conflict and its impact on Ukrainian society. He suggests linking Western support with efforts to address concerns about religious persecution and corruption in Ukraine.

By promoting inclusivity and transparency in governance, the West can empower Ukraine to heal internal divisions and emerge stronger from the conflict.

[Peter Choi edited this podcast.]

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

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

The post Ukraine’s War and the Fight for Faith appeared first on Fair Observer.

Gary Grappo roots as a child of Italian immigrants and his disciplined upbringing shaped his early life and career aspirations. His journey led him from the Air Force Academy to becoming a US Ambassador. Gary discusses the true essence of being a diplomat and the challenges of conveying the importance of service and sacrifice to a new generation.

In this episode, you will gain insight into the unique challenges of working in different cultures and learn about the delicate balance of maintaining one’s faith while respecting and engaging with different religious communities overseas.

Gary also shares his strategy for staying engaged and active in retirement through adventure, teaching and mentoring the next generation. With a distinguished career of service behind him, Ambassador Grappo reflects on his proudest achievements and how his role allowed him to make a substantial impact beyond official recognition, striving to inspire young minds towards a path of service and global engagement.

Don’t miss this fascinating conversation! Whether you’re a student pondering a public service career or simply curious about the world, this episode will offer valuable perspectives.

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

The post The World as Seen by Gary Grappo: A Lifetime of Service and Diplomacy appeared first on Fair Observer.

While they provide crucial income for families and boost the national balance of payments, remittances can be a double-edged sword. They can lead to currency overvaluation, making a country’s exports less competitive on the global market. They can reduce labor participation in the domestic sector, causing workers to opt for more lucrative jobs abroad.

Pakistan relies on remittances to manage external debt and finance deficits. This dependency makes the country vulnerable to external economic shocks. If the flow of remittances were to decrease due to a global economic downturn or changes in immigration policies in host countries, Pakistan could face severe financial challenges.

Remittances are also associated with higher consumption and imports. This trend could lead to a situation where the economy relies more heavily on remittances to maintain consumption levels, potentially limiting investment in productive sectors that drive long-term growth and job creation.

Learning from Israel’s example

Nasir Khilji, a retired senior US Treasury economist, emphasizes the importance of managing these inflows effectively. Nations that receive large amounts of remittances must avoid relying on cash inflows by undertaking structural reforms and investments to diversify the economy and increase labor productivity.

In recent decades, Israel has had similar experiences with remittances. The country directed remittance funds toward infrastructure and technology development. This skillful management helped Israel avoid the trap of dependence. It allowed the Israeli economy to grow, leading to positive economic outcomes.

Countries like Pakistan could follow suit by creating incentives for investment in productive sectors and developing financial products targeted at expatriates. Moreover, they need to implement structural reforms to ensure that the economy does not become overly dependent on remittances. This includes diversifying the economy, improving the business environment, and investing in human capital to increase labor productivity and participation.

As developing economies progress, effectively harnessing these financial resources can be a powerful tool to drive long-term growth and maximize the benefits of the incoming cash while mitigating its potential downsides.

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

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

The post The Quick Take on How Remittances Affect Economies appeared first on Fair Observer.

They unpack some startling realities of working in the media landscape. Motycka offers a candid account of his experiences facing pressure and interference, which not only tested his resolve but also highlighted the essential role of journalism in democracy. From being arrested to standing firm on his quest for balance and truth, Motycka’s story is a testament to the courage journalism demands.

Motycka discusses firsthand the challenges posed by seeking to present unbiased accounts of events and the impact of outside pressures on journalistic integrity. He then gives a detailed recount of the events that led to Motycka’s arrest at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Motycka gives his insights into the evolving dynamics at Vanderbilt, from student activism to administrative responses, as well as the importance of a free press and of personal narrative in journalism. We also dive into Motycka’s nuanced take on how to maintain objectivity in an era of increasing polarization.

The path of a journalist is never easy, but it remains crucial for the functioning of a healthy democracy and society. Berger applauds Motycka for his bravery and perseverance, reiterating the need for more courageous individuals to step into this vital role.

Tune in to hear the full story of Eli Motycka’s commitment to truth.

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

The post Democracy and Dissent: The Story of Eli Motycka’s Arrest appeared first on Fair Observer.

Glenn walks us through his decision to leave the comforts of a potential banking career for the unpredictable world of public service and foreign affairs.

What does it take to be a CIA officer? Glenn breaks down the diverse psyches — from introverts to sociopaths — that make up the agency, sharing why projecting a cool persona was crucial during his assessment.

As we explore Glenn’s journey from his early twenties to the internal and external conflicts that come with the job, we unravel why someone with Glenn’s happy, law-abiding upbringing chose the non-routine life of a CIA officer and what he actually encountered.

The episode then takes a darker turn as Glenn recounts the moments he faced orders conflicting with his legal and moral beliefs during detainee interrogations.

We also talk about how artificial intelligence can exacerbate the manipulation of public perception and why we should be worried about the influence of AI-driven intelligence.

Undoubtedly, the intersection of ethics, obligation, and the personal cost of a career in intelligence is a complex battlefield. Glenn and Rod’s candid discussion reveals the weight intelligence officers carry, and the fine line they walk between professional duties and moral convictions.

In a tale that could rival any spy novel, Glenn’s life experience provides a wake-up call to the very real challenges facing today’s global security landscape and the impact of technology on society’s underpinnings.

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

The post Understanding the Personal Conflicts of a CIA Operative With Glenn Carle appeared first on Fair Observer.

Macron’s shift from peacemaker to critic highlights his recent aggressive rhetoric. While he depicts Russian control of Ukraine as an “existential threat” to Europe, this seems an exaggeration. The real existential threat lies with Ukraine itself. NATO’s proximity to Russia’s borders may make Russia feel threatened, but it is unjustified to say that France faces an existential threat from Russia. Unlike the Cold War, when both NATO and the Soviet Union had nuclear arms pointed at each other, the likelihood of a direct conflict is not nearly as high.

This kind of unrealistic rhetoric is a sign of the level of hyperreality that our discourse has reached. Nowadays, leaders frequently use the term “existential threat” to mobilize the population against whatever problem they see as most politically pressing.

Another sign of this lack of realism is that Macron managed to speak about the war for 40 minutes without mentioning the United States even once. Any conflict that ranks as “existential” in Europe would inevitably draw in the US. Macron’s failure to acknowledge this key factor shows how little connection there is between his rhetoric and the situation on the ground.

Doubtlessly, Europeans are anxiously looking forward to the November 2024 US presidential election. Macron is putting on a stern face now, but the truth is that Europeans do not know what they will do if former US president Donald Trump wins, after which he may withdraw US support from Ukraine.

Macron’s 2024 Re-Election Bid: Ukraine as a Potential Campaign Strategy

The uncertainty of the upcoming 2024 US presidential election is causing concern for Macron due to the current poll numbers, with the far-right National Rally Party polling at 31% and Macron’s party at 18%. Macron seems to believe he should focus on Ukraine as the critical issue on which to take a stand to broaden his appeal. He aims to project a sense of focus and authority within his country and throughout Europe.

Yet Macron has received backlash and mockery for his strong language and behavior. In a moment, the ever-ironic French press sniffed out his insincerity. Macron talks big but has no concrete plans for action in Ukraine.

What’s more, Macron’s recent deal with Ukrainian President Volodimir Zelensky, which he concluded without the consent of parliament, raises concerns about constitutionality. Given his desire to portray himself as a vigorous defender of democracy abroad, it is reasonable to question Macron’s commitment to democratic values at home.

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

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

The post Understanding Macron’s Impact on the Russia-Ukraine War appeared first on Fair Observer.

An experiment in republican government

When Americans look back on their history, they tend to think — sometimes explicitly — that the framers of the constitution were divinely guided, producing a perfect document which was to endure for all time. Yet the truth is that framers were novices, and they did not have a solid conception of how the future republic would work. They had very few historical examples to go on.

Up until their time, republics had only governed cities, subnational entities or small nations like the Netherlands, Venice or Switzerland. Never before did a nation on the scale of the US adopt a republican constitution. At its inception, the US was already a nation of four million people (among whom 700,000 were slaves) with a land area four times the size of Great Britain.

Attempting something that had never been done before, the framers naturally made mistakes. Chief among these was the separation of powers. Following Montesquieu, they separated the executive from the legislature and divided the legislature into two chambers. Thus, they created a system full of veto points, where either the president or the Senate or the House of Representatives can stop legislation dead in its tracks.

The founders did not predict the emergence of the two-party system. At the time, formal parties did not exist. The founders expected that the best and most able men would be able to rise above party spirit and govern for the good of everyone. Yet a binary party system quickly arose, and it has dominated the US for the rest of its history. Most of the time, the president will find at least one of the chambers of Congress controlled by the opposite party. This means that deadlock typically rules the day.

With the hindsight of history, we now understand the minds of the framers better than the generation that ratified the constitution did. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention swore an oath of secrecy that was to last until their deaths. The reasoning that they published openly in writings like the Federalist Papers was not always the same as the reasoning they aired in the convention debates. In truth, the Federalist Papers neither describe what the framers intended to do or what they actually did.

The constitution was not an experiment in democracy, but an attempt to create a strong government that could unite the former colonies and resist the British Empire — with which the young nation still shared a continent. Thus, the framers created an extremely powerful president with war powers, a legislative veto and indefinite reelection, making him effectively an elected king. Alexander Hamilton even suggested giving the presidency legislative powers and toyed with the idea of making it hereditary.

The delegates were united in their wariness of democracy, which they viewed as a destabilizing and anarchic element. During the ratification debates in New York, James Madison warned that democracies “have ever been found spectacles of turbulence and contention … and as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” Hamilton wrote that democracies were dominated by people who “commence as demagogues and end being tyrants.”

Yet the United States had just fought a revolution against unjust taxation without representation, so the framers needed to allow some kind of popular representation in the federal government. Thus, they created the House of Representatives, whose members the people elected directly. But the democratic principle ended here. The Senate was an appointed body. (It would only become elected with the 17th Amendment in 1913). Likewise, the president was chosen by electors empowered by the states. Both the upper house and the executive, with its veto power, had the ability to block any initiative from the popularly elected lower house. Thus, the framers ensured that democracy could not take over the federal government.

The framers hoped to create a system that required gentlemanly deliberation and consensus-building. Yet the constitution was a first (or second) try, and they were aware that it would need to be revised and corrected with the experience of history. They were not able to predict how the operation of the government would turn out in practice. Neither did they predict how fiendishly difficult it would be to amend the constitution in light of its revealed flaws.

United in war, divided in peace

So, the framers installed a system that was riddled with divisions and veto points. It may have been effective at preventing the passage of bad laws, but it was not very effective at allowing the passage of good laws. Indeed, the system only works when Americans have a common purpose around which the different parties and branches of government can unite and coordinate their action. The British Empire was the common enemy that played that role for the founding generation. Indeed, the US would have to fight another war for its very existence against the British in 1812. The various political forces were more-or-less able to cooperate until the threat receded.

Then came the Jacksonian age, marked by increased political strife to the point of physical altercations on the house floor. Sectarian and regional divisions grew, and Americans learned to hate one another. It became impossible to build a political or cultural consensus, and this strife eventually culminated in the Civil War, which is to this day the bloodiest war in American history.

After the war, the victorious North was unable to pick up the pieces in a conclusive way. The project of reconstruction failed to reintegrate the fractured nation, and it continued to be divided until it faced a new external threat — fascism. In World War II, Americans put aside their differences for the cause of defeating fascism. After the war, they remained united in a common purpose to defeat communism in the Cold War. The political system, united to make war on external foes, rallied behind the president whose function it is to make war and to negotiate with foreign powers. Thus, it granted the president increasingly broad authority. Likewise, the population feared external threats and was more inclined to trust and cooperate with the government. Voters did not demand as much public scrutiny of politicians.

Yet the communist threat too receded. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the mentality of the Cold War morphed into an internal cold war wherein the two parties began casting each other as ideological threats and existential enemies. The past 30 years have thus been another period of low external threat and high internal conflict and, thus, political dysfunction. These days, we can hardly pass a budget without destructive political wrangling and brinksmanship.

America is only functional and free from domestic strife when it has an enemy to fight. When it does not, the divisions inherent in the system come out, and the nation descends into polarization, infighting and dysfunction.

A system built to fail

Some analysts would blame polarization right-wing populists who stir up anger and mistrust. But every large nation has some of those. What makes America different are its divided institutions that make it uniquely susceptible to this kind of politics.

In Germany, for example, there are nationalists, but they are largely sidelined by a majoritarian parliamentary system that encourages more consensus-building in the center than a binary divide. In the American system, there are only two options. In both local and national elections, people can merely vote for the lesser evil candidate, who thus wins a large mandate and has litte incentive to compromise.

To make matters worse, since the two candidates are chosen by primary voters who tend to be the most motivated and ideological voters in a party, the candidates skew even farther towards the extremes and away from the center. The result is that candidates fail to represent what most Americans actually want. This, too, is a privation of democratic governance.

Eventually, people will lose patience with an ineffective system that cannot provide solutions to the problems they have. They will turn away from divided legislatures to the only actor that can act unilaterally, which is the presidency. Thus, the president concentrates power and rules by executive order. In this way, too, the system fails to be democratic.

Something has to change. Yet the only mechanism for changing the constitution itself — the amendment process — is itself riddled with veto points, and it is almost impossible to actually use. But all hope is not lost. There are some methods that we could implement now without needing to pass an amendment.

First, we can reform electoral practices. Right now, some local and state governments are experimenting new voting methods, such as approval voting or ranked choice voting, which would be more open to numerous candidates and promote the formation of a consensus around the winner instead of an adversarial relationship. These experiments may become more widely imitated in the future.

Second, we need a more cooperative relationship between the president and Congress. One seldom-talked-about aspect of the constitution is that the vice president is also the president of the Senate. Thus, the vice president is a figure that can function as a liaison between the legislature and the executive, smoothing processes and helping to build agreement.

Third, the US should draw upon the resources of its federal structure. Not every conflict needs to be resolved in an all-or-nothing manner on the federal level. A greater degree of decentralization, which allows different jurisdictions to try different things and for deliberation to happen closest to those affected by it, could go a long way in diffusing the conflicts and polarization that bedevil federal politics today.

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

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

The post Why Are US Politics Dysfunctional? Look at the Constitution. appeared first on Fair Observer.

From the security of a lecture hall to the security of a nation

Karen sheds light on her commitment to shaping a new generation of thinkers. With a focus on complex summer internships for high school and college students, she imparts the wisdom that while they may “not know everything,” they are certainly “capable of knowing everything.” It’s a powerful reminder of the untapped potential residing in our youth, ready to be harnessed through deep thinking and challenging assignments.

Karen and Rod take a deep dive into the role of civic education in understanding democracy’s vulnerabilities and strengths, as well as the changes and challenges within national security conversations, especially for women. There is a deep disconnect between the chaos felt nationally and taking action through means like voting and education. Karen tells how her two-decade career in writing on these heavy topics has shaped her perspectives.

Rod and Karen also tackle the critical issue of having substantial, unifying conversations in a politically charged climate. They explore the disconnect in national discourse and stress the fragile state of the country’s civil health.

According to Karen, conversations about the country’s future are often siloed, and despite the noise, a powerful silence persists on some issues. Her advice? Engage in meaningful talks that focus on our shared humanity — our planet, our children, and the legacy we’re leaving for future generations.

Check out our previous episode, too! 

Related Reading

A Vietnam Veteran’s Journey From Battle to Humanitarian Efforts

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

The post Karen Greenberg on Empowering the Next Generation of Security Experts appeared first on Fair Observer.

Ashank Desai was born into a family in Goa, India, known for their resistance against Portuguese colonial rule. Defiance and resilience shaped his character and fueled his ambitions. Despite limited resources at his school, he excelled academically and made his way to the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT). There, he pursued an engineering degree with unwavering dedication.

After graduating from IIT, Desai’s career took a significant turn. He shifted from designing refrigerators to software, starting a remarkable career. He co-founded Mastek, secured Procter & Gamble as its first significant client, and wrote one of India’s first C programs. This was a pivotal contribution that spurred Mastek’s growth trajectory.

Under Desai’s leadership, Mastek shifted from custom software solutions to proprietary products, establishing a competitive presence. Desai’s vision led the company to create its own ERP product, challenging SAP and Oracle. Mastek achieved significant accomplishments, including implementing London’s congestion charge system and contributing to the development of the NHS spine for the UK’s National Health Service, which manages the electronic medical records of 60 million people.

Desai’s influence extended beyond Mastek. He co-founded NASSCOM to unite business leaders and establish India as a technology powerhouse. In the 1970s, he played a crucial role in the fight for software import liberalization, navigating through India’s License Raj. He played a crucial role in developing enterprise resource management systems for insurance companies, making Mastek a leading provider in the US insurance market. These initiatives significantly advanced the Indian software industry’s global recognition.

Commitment to social progress

Desai’s dedication to societal advancement is evident in his active involvement in social causes. He has established institutions focused on policy studies, leadership and organizational development. Additionally, he supports initiatives that enhance youth skills and leadership training. Desai prioritizes math and science over philosophy and politics, believing in the potential of professionals in public policy.

Desai’s vision encompasses nurturing future professionals capable of driving transformative change in government and public policy. His life story is a blueprint for how determination, innovation and leadership can significantly impact industry and society.

Ashank Desai overcame challenges to become a leader and innovator. He made lasting contributions to the software industry and mentored the next generation of professionals. Desai’s journey is a testament to determination and innovation, inspiring future generations.

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

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

The post How Ashank Desai Made Innovative Strides in Indian Software appeared first on Fair Observer.

David offers invaluable insights for young people searching for their voice, drawing conclusions from his own experiences of internal battle rather than physical conflict. David gives a heartfelt reflection on his transformation as he juxtaposes his hardening survival instincts with his growing affection and empathy towards others, particularly in the context of African communities.

We will hear tales of emergency relief efforts in Lebanon, the poignant nighttime bridge moments with a caring nurse and the catastrophic loss that changed everything. David opens up about his painstaking recovery, his mother’s nurturing influence and his relentless quest for healing through his father’s pursuit of a top neurosurgeon.

We will explore how David channeled his literature-inspired attraction to war environments and intense experiences into a journey that led him from Vietnam back to Africa in search of anonymity and renewed strength. After all this, David tells us how he used music, writing and the beauty of literature to cope with and transcend his pain.

This episode is a window into a soldier’s battle-scarred life and a testament to the human spirit’s undying will to seek and foster life’s preciousness against all odds.

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

The post A Vietnam Veteran’s Journey From Battle to Humanitarian Efforts appeared first on Fair Observer.

Haley served as governor of South Carolina and as the US Ambassador to the United Nations. She presents a unique profile within the Republican Party. Her tenure at the UN showcased her as a tough, outspoken diplomat, while her governorship highlighted a pragmatic approach to governance.

Despite these credentials, Haley’s candidacy raises questions about her ability to consolidate the Republican base, which is staunchly loyal to Trump. Critics argue that her positioning as a more traditional conservative may not resonate with the populist wing of the party. Additionally, she harshly criticized Trump for his role in the January 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill that sought to overturn the result of the 2020 election. Haley later walked these comments back, giving the impression that she lacks steadfastness, which may have diminished her appeal.

Haley’s challenge lies in striking a delicate balance between the traditional conservative wing of the party and the populist wave that still engulfs the GOP. The viability of Haley’s candidacy will depend on her ability to close this gap in a field where Trump’s enduring presence still dominates.

The enigma of a second Trump term

Trump is currently undergoing a range of civil and criminal cases, ranging from business fraud to his alleged role in the Capitol riot. Despite the legal storms, Trump’s base has demonstrated remarkable resilience and loyalty. This unwavering support underscores the deep-seated cultural and political divides within the US. However, the question of sustainability looms large. Will these legal challenges eventually erode Trump’s base or impact his eligibility for office?

The enduring popularity of Trump within the party raises questions about the true influence of legal troubles on his political standing. While investigations may raise doubts, Trump’s ability to maintain a loyal following suggests that, for now, his legal woes haven’t significantly dented his political fortress. However, the long-term impact remains uncertain, making the upcoming election a critical juncture for Trump’s political future.

Observers often discuss the Republican primary as if Trump’s nomination were a foregone conclusion. His enduring popularity and the absence of a strong, unifying challenger contribute to this perception. However, the certainty surrounding Trump’s dominance may be premature. The political landscape is dynamic, and unexpected candidates could emerge, challenging the assumed trajectory of the Republican primary.

Speculation about Trump’s potential running mate adds an additional layer of complexity. Analysts mention figures like Senator Tim Scott, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy or Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The selection process will not only signal Trump’s priorities but also introduce dynamics that may shape the general election in unexpected ways.

What might the future look like?

Predictions about a second Trump presidency are fraught with concerns about the direction he may take the country. His first term was characterized by unconventional governance, and a potential second term could see an emboldened Trump pushing his agenda without the constraints of re-election. This prospect raises questions about the potential impact on domestic and foreign policy.

The protectionist policies of Trump’s first presidency have already left a significant imprint on the global economic order. Biden’s reaction to these policies becomes a crucial point of contention. Critics argue that Biden has failed to articulate a clear alternative that addresses the shortcomings of globalization while protecting American interests. With a possible second Trump presidency on the horizon, worries about further erosion of democratic principles and the exacerbation of polarization worldwide are mounting.

Finally, many are concerned that Trump, with a freer hand in his second term, would endanger democracy not only abroad but also at home. Without the check of another election, Trump might pursue more radical policies and executive actions, potentially leading to significant consequences for the rule of law and the balance of power within the US government.

As the nation inches closer to the next presidential election, the unfolding dynamics will determine the course of American politics in the years to come.

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

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

The post Donald Trump and Nikki Haley Challenge Republicans to Define Themselves appeared first on Fair Observer.

The trend of Arab–Israeli normalization pushed both Palestine and Iran to the sidelines. Hamas, backed by Iran, sought to change that. Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. The attack and the subsequent war not only brought the Palestinian issue to the front and center of discourse once again but also re-injected Iran into the fight for regional power.

The Israel–Hamas war created a crack in regional power dynamics

Iran now has an opening where it didn’t have one before. Of course, it is as they say in the business world: Never invest with your own money. Iran used Hamas to break into the fight for regional power, and it will continue with that tactic. Terrorist groups such as the Houthis and Hezbollah offer Iran the chance to upend the fragile regional dynamics. Not only this, but Iran can also threaten increasingly brittle global trade.

It is no secret that non-geographically centered power wins over geographically-centered states. Iran can strike from many places at once, stretching the US capacity to respond thin. As in the US–Vietnam War, asymmetric warfare has proven to be wildly successful in upsetting what seemed to be a one-sided power dynamic.  In backing and funding groups such as Hamas and the Houthis, Iran is now broading the focus of attention. No longer is the world only focused on the Israel–Hamas war; the focus is increasingly on Iran as a player with growing influence.

The big powers of the Middle East find themselves, much like Odysseus’ crew, caught between Scylla and Charybdis. Saudi Arabia in particular is feeling the strain. On one hand, war with Israel is the last thing Saudi Arabia wants. But on the other, its majority Sunni Muslim population views Saudi leaders as ignoring the sentiments of their citizens. The hearts of the Arab street, of course, are with their fellow Muslims in Palestine. Thus, regional leaders risk being viewed as either spineless or corrupt. Iran has thus thrown a wrench in the Arab monarchy’s plans. 

The ripples Iran is making spread far beyond the geographical confines of the Middle East, too. The Iran-sponsored Houthis are attacking shipping vessels in the Red Sea from their base in Yemen. Through them, Iran is doing damage to intercontinental trade and thus to the entire global economy.

The US is beginning to feel the strain. Iran and its allies are carrying out strikes in the Red Sea, Syria, Iraq and Pakistan. Russia and China may seize the opportunity to move into the area as the US has its back turned. Even India has sensed the rising tension. While it knows it must maintain connections with Iran, it must also uphold the principle of free trade on the high seas that Iran is attacking. So, India and other nations outside the region are beginning to stress.

From a unipolar world to multiple spheres of influence

The Israel–Hamas war may have lasting consequences globally. Ukraine, in particular, has lost much from the aftermath of October 7. As the US diverts its aid to Israel and the Red Sea, aid cannot make its way to Ukraine. The Biden administration is finding it harder and harder to divide its support between Israel and Ukraine. 

The unrest in the Middle East affects the US domestically too. The US public is divided between supporting Israel or Palestine. The Left criticizes the administration for refusing to call a ceasefire. The Right accuses the administration of being complicit with Hamas. Once again, the two-party divide seems to have weakened US coherence, actions and influence. 

Weakened influence isn’t the only danger that comes with a divided US public. The public struggles to understand why the US should be involved in any conflicts in the Middle East. This raises the temptation for US leaders to disengage from the region or even from the world at large. Disengagement will guarantee chaos. De facto spheres of influence will shape international transactions rather than a Western-backed, unipolar system.

In other words, what we know of the normative order is collapsing right in front of our eyes. 

This impending chaos will change everything from the price of pencils to how a war is waged. The Israel-Hamas war is a chip off the world order. We will no longer be facing a unipolar world order with the US on top. Rather, we face a multipolar one. 

Decentralization of power has already begun. US influence in the Middle East, which is the successor to European colonialism in the region, is losing its rationale in the eyes of American citizens and of the world. The Israel–Hamas war is the straw that broke the camel’s back. The domino effect has now cascaded from the region onto the global stage.

The normative system is now being replaced, and no one knows what the coming multipolar order will be like.

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

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

The post How the Israel–Hamas War Is Now Changing the World appeared first on Fair Observer.

For those who need a brush-up on their history, Guyana is a former British colony. It gained independence in 1966, but Venezuela has claimed two-thirds of Guyana’s land since 1899. However, the an 1899 arbitral tribunal in Paris ruled in favor of British Guyana, granting the British Empire the Essequibo territory. The tribunal drew the territorial line between the states of Venezuela and Guyana. For 124 years, Venezuela has denounced this line.

Hope came for Venezuela in the form of the 1966 Geneva Agreement on the eve of Guyana’s independence. Venezuela and the British Empire signed this agreement with the understanding that Venezuela and Guyana would agree to settle the border dispute at a later date. It seems that now Venezuela is coming to collect on this agreement but is doing so unilaterally.

Venezuela questions the people’s support

Composed of five questions, the referendum aimed to understand the position Venezuelan citizens took on the current situation of Guyana. The first question asked if the citizens rejected the decision of the 1899 Tribunal. Venezuela sees this tribunal as taking away its national sovereignty. If the country’s citizens reject the tribunal decision, then Venezuela can assert its ownership over Guyanese land with popular support.

The second question asked if citizens embraced the 1966 Geneva Agreement. Despite being signed in 1966, no move has been made towards fulfilling the agreement. The territorial lines remain as they were in 1899. Venezuela must assert the authority granted through the agreement if it wishes to take back its territory. 

The referendum’s third question undermines the second: Do Venezuelan citizens reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice? This question sets up the idea that the Venezuela-Guyana dispute must be settled domestically rather than internationally. Both the 1899 Tribunal and the 1966 Geneva agreement were settled with major colonial players. This time around, Venezuela is hoping to settle this within Latin America.

However, in order to settle this within Latin America, Venezuela must know where its citizens stand on the issue of military force. This is what the fourth question asks: If Guyana comes to defend the territorial line with its own military, will citizens support forceful action? Or will Venezuela’s own citizens deny the use of the military?

CAPTION: On December 3, 2023, Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino cast his vote in full combat fatigues.

The fifth question poses Venezuela’s solution to newly acquired territory. It asks if citizens would embrace the declaration of a new state within Venezuela’s territory. This new state would issue distinct “Guyana-Essequibo” IDs to identify former Guyanese citizens. In other words, Venezuela is seeking support to add a new state within its borders.

Venezuela reported that over 95% of the millions of voters answered “yes” to every question, claiming near-unanimous support for the annexation of oil-rich Guyanese land. However, these numbers may have been falsified. Many observers have said that the turnout was much lower than the reported numbers. 

Venezuela relies heavily on its military

The unreliability of voter turnout is in keeping with the election fraud committed by current Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in 2018. It is well known that Maduro’s reign has undermined democracy in Venezuela. So, it is no surprise that the referendum numbers do not reflect reality. 

The issues the referendum raises have no real impact on normal citizens. It is an anti-Western, political move. However, the potential invasion and subsequent annexation of Guyana still lies in the indeterminate future. Despite the lack of investment, the country’s bankruptcy, Western trade sanctions, and its inability to drill for oil, Venezuela still eyes more oil-rich territory. This aggressive posturing is a risk because the Venezuelan military is still strong. Its strength comes from the Chavista movement of the 1990s. The militaristic ideologies of revolutionary leader Hugo Chávez may have been introduced in 1992, but his influence remains ingrained in Venezuelan politics. 

The influence of the Chavista movement is only one facet of this dispute. Other factors are in play, namely the lack of media attention to the tensions between Venezuela and Guyana. With the conflicts in Ukraine and Israel-Gaza taking center stage, Venezuela is banking on the hypothesis that the world is tired of conflict. A world tired of conflict won’t have the energy to turn its news cameras onto Guyana. 

It takes no imagination to predict what will happen if Venezuela and Guyana fail to reach an agreement. The presence of uniformed military personnel at Venezuela’s voting centers makes the country’s stand on the use of force clear. As the eyes of the world are turned away from Guyana, Venezuela is free to move into the mineral-rich Essequibo territory. Only one question remains unanswered: What will Guyana do? And what will other countries do to protect Guyana?

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

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

The post What Is the New Venezuela-Guyana Drama All About? appeared first on Fair Observer.

There are no simple explanations for this phenomenon. Africa is a huge continent with 54 different sovereign states. It is far too complex to capture in a nutshell. Still, some general trends contribute to political instability.

A history of division

The first trend is centuries old. The Sahel, a strip of arid, yet habitable land, runs across the northern part of Africa. This area connects the vast Sahara Desert to the north with the rest of Africa to the south. It is a meeting-place of civilizations. Here, the Muslim civilizations of the  north of Africa meet the animist and Christian civilizations of the south. Within the Sahel, too, Arab and Berber populations come into contact with black populations.

The two sides have a fraught relationship. Since the Islamic Caliphate conquered the northern part of Africa in the 7th century, Muslim North Africa has often looked upon the rest of Africa as a source of booty and slaves. Arab and Berber kingdoms of the north frequently raided and conquered the states of the south.

Later, when the trans-Atlantic slave trade began, the flow of slaves partly reversed. Muslim Africans, often prisoners of war, were transported through the states of the south and sold to the Europeans as slaves. The Europeans shipped them from ports in West and Central Africa to colonies in the New World like Brazil and the future United States.

Centuries of mutual exploitation and enslavement created deep-seated distrust between Muslim and non-Muslim Africans. This pattern largely persisted until the late 19th century, when European power eclipsed Muslim power. Britain, France, Portugal and other colonial powers carved up most of Africa into colonies.

The second source of division occurred in the 1960s, when European power in Africa waned. The Europeans withdrew, leaving power to administrations dominated by local elites, often those who had a good relationship with the exiting colonial power. Those who came to power in this way were reluctant to let it go. In a large number of cases, they created kleptocracies dominated by their own families, and their main support came from their ethnic groups. They lived like kings in their palaces — or abroad — while their countrymen starved.

These de facto kings relied on their military to rule the people. However, palaces softened them and their families. Children of African dictators prefer shopping in Paris and partying in London. Rarely do they serve in remote military posts. So, the officer corps is usually not connected to the ruling family by blood ties. The army thus has little incentive to support the corrupt ruling family. Officers tend to be like scruffy street dogs who can chew up the palace poodles. This makes military coups common.

The third source of division is peculiar to the former French colonies. It reinforced both of the previous divisions. When the British left Africa, they largely left their colonies to their own devices. Instead, the French tried to influence policy by rewarding cooperative African elites with French citizenship. Even after giving its colonies independence, France still controlled them by running an informal empire. 

By backing friendly elites with money and military support, France created a situation in which the rulers of African nations were more dependent on Paris than on their own populations. It is one thing to be ruled by an elite, but it is much worse to be ruled by an elite that answers to a foreign power. This created deep resentment among African populations.

The state of Africa today

Finally, the French empire in Africa is disintegrating. Many African nations have expelled the French military. Instead, they are now relying on Russian military contractors for support. In this way, mercenaries like Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner Group or its more Putin-friendly replacement, Redut, have expanded their influence in Africa. 

Russia is a master at propaganda that it spreads through various means, especially online. Moscow also pays Africans to spread pro-Russian propaganda. Russians and their African accomplices push anti-Western narratives, fostering the impression that Africa’s problems are the fault of France and the US. Of course, as per this narrative, working with Russia is the solution to all of Africa’s problems. It is plausible that Russia will politically dominate parts of Africa for the next decade or two. But, in the end, Africa swallows up all conquerors. Russian domination won’t last.

Related Reading

Russia Is Destroying the Powerful French Empire in Africa

The real loser, aside from the West, is the African Union (AU). The AU formally counts all nations in Africa as its members. It keeps military brigades on standby across the continent. Yet they seldom intervene when coups occur. Niger, Gabon and Burkina Faso have recently had coups. Expectedly, the AU did not act. Like the UN, which has only fought one war in its history, the AU is paralyzed. Currently, military intervention cannot be done multilaterally. There are always some members who would prefer not to intervene.

Nigeria, the most populous and one of the most powerful nations in Africa, formed the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to serve as a more local substitute for the AU. ECOWAS could have been Nigeria’s “coalition of the willing.” But even within its narrower geographic focus, too many states in the region oppose ECOWAS’s goals for the organization to be effective. Furthermore, Nigeria is fighting a civil war of its own against the Islamist group Boko Haram and does not have any political cohesion. Every president hangs on by his fingernails to power.

UN peacekeeping forces will not stop coups either. Besides, the UN is held back by red tape and corruption. The US maintains some military bases on the continent, but Washington has no appetite for intervention. Donald Trump had a more isolationist bent while Joe Biden is distracted by Ukraine, the Middle East and Taiwan.

Will Africa make it through? Things certainly do not look good right now. In Sudan, one of Africa’s largest nations, a civil war is currently unfolding. Forces loyal to Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, aka Hemedti, have pushed the Sudanese army out of many cities, including the capital, Khartoum. Hemedti is a Muslim and considers himself an Arab while the forces that oppose him are largely black African. So, the same old story is playing out.

Related Reading

Sudan Is on the Brink of a New Catastrophe

It is far too early to begin predicting what will happen in Sudan or the continent as a whole. What we can say is that chaos is increasing, economic activity is decreasing, and life is getting worse for everyone. Yet Africans are hardworking and resourceful. The African diaspora wires much more money back home than all international aid to Africa put together. In the end, Africans are resilient. They will bear these unstable times and outlast foreign interventions. They and we can be confident that the future will be African, and it will be bright.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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

The post Why Africans Fight for Survival as Coups Pummel the Continent appeared first on Fair Observer.

US President Joe Biden was in Israel shortly after the attack. He was vocal about his support for Israel. This is likely to create tension between the US and the Arab world.

Biden was supposed to meet with the king of Jordan, the president of Egypt and the president of the Palestinian authority. This meeting was canceled after reports that a rocket had destroyed a hospital in Gaza. However, it was later revealed it was not an Israeli rocket that caused the explosions.

This all will make brokering a normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia more complicated. 

US military power is surging to the region, mainly to deter Hezbollah from entering the conflict. That would create a two-front war for Israel, with Hamas in Gaza to the south and Hezbollah in Lebanon to the north. The US goal will be to keep the conflict contained.

The war has enflamed passions across the Arab world. This will probably not lead, though, to an Arab uprising like the 2011 Arab Spring. The Arab Spring was not organized around support for the Palestinians, but rather deep-rooted grievances about governance, or lack thereof, and especially the economic situation.

Russia–Ukraine War

Vladimir Putin is likely glad the Israel–Hamas conflict is occupying the world’s focus. However, the US Congress may package aid to Ukraine together with aid to Israel. This makes it more likely that Ukraine will get military aid than it was before the war in Gaza began.

A very long war favors Russia because for Ukraine to keep up a war of attrition, it has to rely on the generosity of donor countries (primarily the US and Europe). The West’s appetite for aid is not as high as it was at the beginning of the war, and it will presumably continue to decline. Russia, conversely, will increasingly have the upper hand because of its large domestic resource base

The situation, therefore seems to favor Russia. Ukraine and Russia may still be fighting a year from now. However, there are a bunch of unknowns that could tip the war either way. Western military technology might make new tactical options available for Ukraine; Russian lines or Ukrainian lines could falter, and the situation would change rapidly.

Ukraine’s neighbors: Poland, Hungary and Turkey

Poland just had elections, so there will be a new government there. The new government is more pro-Europe, so any tension with Ukraine is likely to subside.

More worrying is the situation with Hungary. On October 17, the Hungarian president met Vladimir Putin — the first time a NATO leader met with Putin since the war began. Still, Hungary is unlikely to make a meaningful impact on the outcome of the war.

Then comes Ukraine’s neighbor across the Black Sea, Turkey. Turkey’s role in NATO is always complicated. Turkey is formally aligned with the West, but it plays a double game, keeping ties with Russia. This has allowed it to do things like negotiate the original Black Sea grain initiative. 

In September, Turkey collaborated with Russia in Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan. All the Armenians have been kicked out in a form of ethnic cleansing. This happened with Russia’s blessings and Turkey’s involvement. (This may not be the end of the story, either — Azerbaijan may invade Armenia itself. Azerbaijan could capture territory in southern Armenia to create a land bridge with its exclave, Nakhchivan.)

Turkey blocking Sweden’s entrance into NATO continues to be a frustration. This is because of what Turkey sees as Sweden’s insufficient crackdown on Kurdish activists. Hopefully, Turkey will see the bigger picture because Sweden would be a great ally to have in NATO.

China and the US face off in the Pacific

On the other side of Eurasia, the United States is facing a challenge of a different kind.

The rise of China is the most consequential challenge to the US ever. China-US relations are going to continue to be tense indefinitely.

The Taiwan issue is special because it is the one that could lead to conflict between the two powers. It’s extremely unlikely the US and China will come to blows over the South China Sea or the Uyghurs or any other issue that divides the two countries. Over Taiwan, they could. President Xi Jinping has told his army to be ready for the forcible seizure of Taiwan by 2027, and President Biden four times publicly has said that if Taiwan is attacked, the US will come to its defense. 

There are multiple reasons Taiwan is important. Recently, there has been talk about semiconductors and their critical role in the US economy. There is also the military advantage that China would accrue by controlling Taiwan. Also, there are long-standing ties between Taiwan and the US. There is a real desire to avoid seeing a free, democratic country swallowed up by force.

Chinese economic turmoil

The Chinese Communist Party is going through a crisis of legitimacy. Its implicit contract with the Chinese people is that it provides them economic growth in exchange for their loyalty. But the COVID-19 pandemic took a heavy toll on the Chinese economy, and deeper issues like over-investment in real estate development have created dangerous bubbles.

Still, large economies have survived bubbles bursting before. The US weathered the 2007–2008 subprime mortgage crisis, and it did not implode. These days, the mood among analysts of China is all doom and gloom; the talk is all about a “declining China.” But Zhongnanhai hasn’t gotten the memo. By and large, Chinese government officials still believe that, despite economic setbacks, China is on the rise and the declining West will have to deal with it.

At the end of the day, it is too early to tell. We simply do not know if China will recover or if this slump marks the beginning of the end. We also do not know how Xi will react. Will he focus on the economy like Deng Xiaoping, or will he imitate Mao Zedong and subordinate economic issues to ideological ones? We do not know, but for now, the latter seems more likely.

[Erica Beinlich wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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

Ukraine Is Now Sadly Sliding Into The Shadows

New Armenian Ethnic Cleansing Is Bad for the World

Will Democracy Survive the Rise of China?

The post Richard Fontaine on US Security in the World Today appeared first on Fair Observer.

Election denial?

Republicans are not the only ones who are confused. Diplomats from some of America’s Western allies have expressed concerns over the choice of a speaker who denies the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.

Schell explains that Mike Johnson is not as simplistic as he’s been made out to be by the media — a sort of one-dimensional conspiracy theorist. His concerns are a little more subtle than that. 

At the time of Texas v. Pennsylvania, one of the most notable Supreme Court cases that dealt with the validity of the elections in 2020, Johnson filed an amicus curiae brief with the Court. The primary concern that he expressed in the brief was that local governments were making decisions about voting procedures with little or no legislative oversight. This lack of legal process created the bad appearance of illegitimacy, even if no outright tampering occurred — something which Johnson did not claim.

So, the anxiety about Johnson being an “election denier” is somewhat overblown. He did not endorse conspiracy theories about election tampering. He did question the legal legitimacy of some results, although he has even walked that position back somewhat. As far as the near future is concerned, in Schell’s opinion, American democracy is not in peril.

Other diplomats, hailing from the Global South, talk about the optics of Johnson’s speakership. How does the United States look, holding the Summit for Democracy in March and then choosing an election denier for a speaker in October?

Schell responds that this is not a material concern. This summit was inaugurated by President Joe Biden and is not longstanding US policy. Furthermore, the House of Representatives has very little to do with US diplomacy. So, President Joe Biden can hold his summits without worrying about who is sitting at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The unstable Republican speakership

Johnson’s predecessor as speaker, Kevin McCarthy, had struggled to attain his nomination. It took him an unheard-of 15 ballots to finally win a majority in January 2023. He was only able to do so by making deep concessions to his party’s right wing. In particular, he agreed that a single member could initiate a “motion to vacate” and potentially oust him from his office.

The US at the time was about to reach its debt ceiling, and the House, which has the power of the purse, needed to authorize further borrowing. McCarthy was forced to compromise with House Democrats in order to pass a deal to allow this. Because of that compromise, Representative Matt Gaetz exercised the right to initiate a motion to vacate. On October 2, in a historic first, Republicans threw their own speaker out.

No clear successor was waiting in the wings. Without a leader in the House, Republicans had no one to gather around and form consensus for bills. So, the Republican-controlled House was adrift. If Republicans had not elected another speaker by tha ( deadline of November 17, they probably could not have avoided a government shutdown. This would have been a disaster for the party, as every news source would have called it a Republican-led shutdown. Not only that, but Congress would not have been able to take any other action, such as authorizing more aid for Ukraine or Israel.

So, with such a high cost to not electing a speaker, is it true that anyone would have been better than no one? One hesitates to say yes, but it is true that nearly anyone who could pull off the job, at least temporarily, would be a sheer necessity given the circumstances.

So who is Mike Johnson, anyway?

Mike Johnson may not be the most notable man on Capitol Hill, but he is not just anyone, either. So, who is he? Where does he come from, and what does he believe?

A Louisiana native, Johnson studied business administration at Louisiana State University and earned his law degree there, too. An evangelical Baptist, he spent the better part of his legal career defending religious causes.

Johnson represents the 4th district in the state’s west. Steve Scalise, the House Majority Leader, also hails from Louisiana, representing the 1st district, which covers New Orleans’s suburbs. The Republican caucus considered but passed over Scalise for speaker, judging him to be too much of an insider. They similarly considered and rejected Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan. Tom Emmer, from Minnesota, lasted two hours before dropping out. Finally, Johnson became the caucus’ fourth nominee and won.

Unlike fellow Louisianan Scalise, who is more moderate, Johnson is firmly on the right wing. He is a staunch religious conservative and a pro-lifer. While he has strong convictions, he is not a strident, talking-point ideologue; in fact, he is something of a policy wonk.

Quite popular, Johnson ran unopposed in his last election and received unanimous support from his own party in the speakership vote. This is notable, given the shaky support behind the previous candidates for speaker.

Johnson does not always follow the party line. The adoptive father of a black child, he forcefully condemned the killing of George Floyd at the hands of police as “an act of murder.” This statement caused some consternation among his fellow party members, who viewed it as a liberal narrative.

Immediately after becoming speaker, Johnson declared war on the nation’s debt. He has made addressing the solvency of the federal government’s entitlement programs — chiefly Social Security and Medicare — a key part of his policy.

Johnson has little to no experience running a legislative agenda, which is an asset for him as Republicans did not want an insider. He is not exactly a newbie, as he is on his fourth term, and he previously chaired the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government. As far as insider connections and personal Capitol Hill loyalties go, though, Johnson is beholden to no one and is thus an unknown quantity.

Significance of a Trump-supporting speaker

Let us turn now to the broader significance that Johnson’s election has for broader American political culture. Donald Trump, the previous president, is now undergoing no less than four felony trials. Yet, the new speaker is an election doubter and a firm Trump supporter. In many other countries, politicians would not tolerate even a whiff of criminality surrounding their allies. So do Republicans tolerate Trump and his friends?

Schell is not sounding the alarm bells yet. It would be a bigger problem, perhaps, if Johnson had supported Trump out of personal loyalty. But his concerns about the election were principled, not personal. So they are no evidence that corruption is seeping into the House.

Likewise, many point to the fiasco of McCarthy’s ouster and the subsequent scramble for a new speaker as a sign of growing chaos in the Republican party. But in Schell’s view, this was the doing of eight radicals, not of the party. Notably, Gaetz and the other members who helped to oust McCarthy were not rewarded with the speakership themselves. Indeed, most House Republicans are furious with them. So they should not be taken as representative of the party as a whole.

So, while the razor-thin Republican majority empowered some Republicans to punch above their weight, the institutions themselves have not been subverted. And they can even be strengthened. Hopefully, Republicans will get rid of the single-member motion to vacate and perhaps add a new rule to allow for an ousted speaker to continue until his replacement has been found. In any case, Republicans now have a speaker who is more popular and thus in a surer position than McCarthy was ten months ago.

Where do we go from here?

Johnson is likely to push for a stopgap measure to keep the government funded for a few months. This will buy his party time to negotiate the traditional annual budget, which is passed as twelve separate bills to allow for greater legislative scrutiny. This avoids cramming the entire budget into a single omnibus bill, which Republicans wish to avoid as such a process makes scrutiny more difficult and thus encourages overspending.

Johnson is a strong supporter of aid to Israel but opposes further aid to Ukraine. There are some signs, however, that he is willing to negotiate on the latter point. Democrats may persuade him to package aid to Israel and Ukraine together in a single bill.

Democrats may perhaps be displeased that they can no longer lambast “Republican chaos” in the House. Some are taking the opportunity to portray Johnson as the far-right speaker of a far-right party. But, in truth, it is too early to tell whether or not Johnson will be a man that Democrats can work with. His values are known, but his legislative style is not. Will he be a fighter, or a negotiator? We will just have to wait and see.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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

The post Who Is the New US House Speaker, Mike Johnson? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Bhutto’s opportunistic rise to power

Bhutto entered politics under President Iskandar Ali Mirza as a cabinet member in 1955. In 1958, President Muhammad Ayub Khan, the first military dictator of Pakistan, appointed Bhutto commerce minister and he went on to hold other cabinet posts. In 1963, Bhutto was appointed foreign minister and became a proponent of Operation Gibraltar. This was Pakistan’s military strategy to incite insurgency among the Muslim-majority population in the Kashmir Valley. Bhutto advised Ayub Khan to infiltrate Kashmir, assuring him Pakistan would walk away victorious. However, as a result of poor planning and execution, the infiltrators’ presence was quickly discovered by the Indian military, resulting in their defeat. 

In early 1966, India and Pakistan signed the Tashkent Declaration to resolve the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965. Bhutto negotiated this treaty but, soon afterwards, claimed that the peace treaty to which Bhutto himself was a party was signed unilaterally by Ayub Khan. To be precise, Bhutto backstabbed Ayub Khan. 

This populist politician dishonestly argued that Pakistan was denied a victory thanks to Ayub Khan’s deal with India and started a movement against his boss. Bhutto resigned as foreign minister and launched the PPP on an Islamic socialist platform. Bhutto caused the downfall of Ayub Khan and another military general named Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan took charge in 1969.

Yahya Khan announced an election in 1970. Bhutto’s PPP won in West Pakistan, the modern-day Pakistan. The Bangladesh Awami League led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman triumphed in East Pakistan, modern-day Bangladesh. After 1947, Pakistan comprised both West and East Pakistan, both of them separated by around 2,000 kilometers with India in between. West Pakistan tended to dominate and imposed Urdu on its eastern cousins. In 1970, Mujibur Rahman won the overall majority but this caused unease among the West Pakistan elites.

Many in West Pakistan, including Yahya Khan and Bhutto saw Awami League’s Six Point Movement as an attempt to divide the country. Bhutto refused to accept an Awami League government and charmingly threatened to “break the legs” of any elected PPP member who dared to attend the inaugural session of the National Assembly, Pakistan’s parliament. Bhutto’s intransigence created a political and constitutional crisis.

The military annulled the elections. Mujibur Rahman called Bengalis to join him in the struggle for Bangladesh. He was jailed but a full-blown struggle for independence erupted. The Pakistani Army committed awful human rights abuses, including indiscriminate killings, torture and mass rape. Refugees fled across the border and India intervened on behalf of Bangladesh. The Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 led to catastrophic defeat for the Pakistani Army and the liberation of Bangladesh. Yahya Khan stepped down and Bhutto took over.

Bhutto’s achievements and failings as Pakistan’s leader

Bhutto rescued the 93,000 West Pakistani troops that became prisoners of war in India after signing the Shimla Agreement, a peace treaty signed between Pakistan and India in 1972. The agreement put an end to the India-Pakistan conflict and the diplomatic recognition of Bangladesh by Pakistan. On the whole, this agreement turned out to be very favorable for Pakistan because Bhutto won great gains on empty promises to India. After the Shimla Agreement, Bhutto became a savior for retrieving thousands of Pakistani troops and wresting diplomatic victory from the jaws of military defeat. This was the high watermark of his leadership.

India’s League of Internationalists

While Bhutto deserves praise for his deft diplomacy during the Shimla Agreement, his economic policies are more controversial. Bhutto lurched to the left in his economic policies. After all, he had promised his people Islamic socialism and proceeded to implement a policy of widespread nationalization. The Pakistani government took over key industries, banks and private enterprises. 

Like other left-leaning policies, Bhutto’s socialism intended to reduce economic disparities and promote public ownership. However, it led to inefficiency, reduced productivity and a decline in private sector investment. Bhutto’s socialism gave too much power to the Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS), leading to red tape, inefficiency, corruption, increasing transaction costs, and crushing businesses. 

Bhutto’s critics not only blame him for the military defeats of 1965 and 1971 but also brutal repression in Balochistan. Bhutto sacked two provincial governments within six months, arrested the chief ministers, two governors and 44 legislators. In 1973, he launched a military crackdown on Balochistan that caused thousands of deaths and led to massive human rights abuses. It was under his leadership that Pakistan’s parliament passed a law declaring Ahmadis to be non-Muslims in 1974. 

Many blame Bhutto for this highly discriminatory sectarian law but others point out that it was the National Assembly that passed this legislation. Bhutto was just a politician who followed the mob instead of a leader who pointed to a promised land. Because of his reputation for loving wine, women and song, he banned alcohol for Muslims to appease the mullahs. They had been growing in power since independence in 1947 because Pakistan was a largely illiterate country. These mullahs were criticizing Bhutto and, once he gave in on alcohol, they pushed hard on the Ahmadi issue. Ironically, Ahmadis were some of the greatest votaries of Pakistan, great entrepreneurs and one of them was the father of the Pakistani atom bomb.

Even Bhutto’s critics give him credit for his foreign policy though. He promoted secular internationalism as well as bolstering relations with the Islamic world. Relations with both communist China and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia improved during Bhutto’s tenure. In 1973, his government drafted the current constitution of Pakistan, following which he appointed Fazal Ilahi Chaudhry as president and assumed the newly-empowered role of prime minister. Bhutto also initiated Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, which ultimately led to his country developing an atom bomb. 

To this day, Bhutto’s supporters defend him. Some even support his economic policies, claiming they increased social justice and reduced income inequality. Nasir Khilji points out that postcolonial states were going through a socialist zeitgeist. Bhutto’s Indian counterpart Indira Gandhi turned even more socialist than him. The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) became even more powerful than the PAS. So, Bhutto deserves a benefit of doubt for adopting socialism. After all, he was a lawyer, not an economist.

To this day, Bhutto’s legacy is a matter of contention. Supporters laud his nationalism, secular internationalist agenda and diplomatic achievement, especially the Shimla Agreement. They give him credit for the atom bomb and the constitution, and consider him one of Pakistan’s greatest leaders. In contrast, his critics condemn him for Pakistan’s economic ruin, catastrophic military defeats and terrible human rights abuses. Khilji believes he was more of a villain than a hero. In a nutshell, his legacy is a deeply tortured one for his country and his region.

[Madelyn Lambert wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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

The post The Truth About Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto appeared first on Fair Observer.

In this episode of FO° Podcasts, Bilal Rahmani explains exactly how the Taliban are transforming Afghanistan into an oppressive pariah state through rank incompetence and self-enriching policy decisions. Eventually, this downward spiral of corruption and violence could spell an end to the modern borders of Afghanistan. 

Economic stagnation and brutal oppression

Restoring some semblance of normalcy in the Taliban’s Afghanistan has been incredibly difficult. Policy around economic activity shifts on the whims of elder militant leaders. Some days, entire sectors, like women’s beauty salons, are told to close. On other days, crops are simply not allowed to leave the country, killing exports. Operating on this shifting ground has created new risks in Afghanistan’s economy. Business planning has become impossible because the Taliban make economic policy on a whim. 

Land seizures by the Taliban are the most egregious example of a toxic economic environment. The Taliban’s Ministry of Justice is seizing agricultural or housing land en masse and redistributing it to Taliban leaders. These seizures force many Afghans off their land and deprive them of their livelihoods. Furthermore, these warlords are probably the least productive members of society. The land grab is making Taliban leaders rent-seeking parasitical landlords who live off the blood, sweat and toil of ordinary Afghans.

Just as the Taliban are deciding who are the winners in Afghanistan’s economy, they are also anointing the winners in society. The Taliban have deemed Pashtun men as the undisputed top dogs in Afghanistan. Fanatical Islamist policies that interpret the Koran literally deny women education, bar them from jobs, prevent them from traveling alone and reduce them to second-class members of society.

Even when women are given rights by the Taliban leadership — often to appease international organizations or foreign governments — ground-level Taliban members unleash violence and intimidation to ensure that women do not exercise their rights. Fearing for their safety, women are increasingly excluding themselves from normal social activities and living in hiding.

Ethnic Hazaras and Tajiks have also found themselves on the losing side of the new Taliban-led state that dispenses patronage overwhelmingly to Pashtuns. The Taliban are seizing ancestral Hazara and Tajik lands. There is a distinct punitive military character to the land seizures. Taliban leaders do not feel the need to negotiate with their historical ethnic rivals. Instead, they are following medieval tactics and using extreme military force and human rights abuses to take away land from those they consider their enemies.

The Taliban bait and switch and the future of Afghanistan

The Taliban have proved that they are neither competent nor cohesive. They are now targeting Pakistan to win domestic legitimacy. Simply put, the Taliban are using their insurgent tactics to take back their ancestral ethnic Pashtun lands in Pakistan and create Pashtunistan, a new state that reclaims the historic lands of the Pashtuns.

This shift in the Taliban’s paradigm has caught Pakistan napping. Ironically, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) once backed the Taliban. This dreaded military intelligence wanted strategic depth against India and aimed to use Pashtun jihadis in Kashmir. Now that the Taliban are in charge, they do not feel beholden to the ISI. They have turned their guns on Pakistan itself. Alarmingly, Taliban forces have already clashed with Pakistani troops.

Some senior leaders in the Taliban do not want relations with Pakistan to deteriorate. They are resorting to both direct talks and shuttle diplomacy. Lieutenant General Faiz Hameed, the ISI chief, visited Kabul recently to smooth ruffled feathers. In a very public appearance, he told journalists not to worry and that “everything would be okay.” However, Hameed might be putting on a brave face because the more ethnonationalist members of the Taliban fanatically believe in the creation of Pashtunistan.

Just as the Taliban seek to redraw the borders of modern Afghanistan and Pakistan to benefit the Pashtun people, Afghanistan’s many ethnic groups have carved out their own centers of power for self-preservation. Militant rebellions have broken out. Mawlawi Mehdi Mujahid, a Hazara leader, and the National Resistance Front, composed chiefly of Tajiks, have rebelled. So far, the Taliban have been successful at quashing these rebellions. They deploy overwhelming force to quash the rebellion and maintain control over rebel territories. However, rebellions still keep erupting to challenge the Taliban.

Such rebellions will continue. During the Afghan Civil War, Abdul Rashid Dostum created a proto-state for ethnic Uzbek Afghans. With the Taliban repeatedly threatening the lives and livelihoods of ethnic minorities, they are bound to create Dostum-style enclaves for survival. At some point, multiple rebellions might erupt simultaneously and threaten Taliban rule.

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

The post Make Sense of the Taliban-Ruled Afghanistan appeared first on Fair Observer.

A trip down the Tata memory lane

Billimoria remembers meeting the late Jehangir Ratanji Dadabhoy Tata, known popularly as JRD, whom he calls a “magnetic personality.” As per Billimoria, JRD oozed charisma, put you at ease and impressed you with his humility. JRD was able to enthuse people, who then gave their best.

(The only person who compares to JRD today is Deepak Parekh, who lets grass grow under his feet. His achievements with HDFC Bank are extraordinary. He has created an empire in a “stunning” career and Parekh does not get due credit for what he has done.)

JRD had a knack for identifying and supporting talent. Russi Mody of Tata Steel, Darbari Seth of Tata Chemicals and Ajit Kerkar of Indian Hotels are three examples of talented managers JRD selected. All three were entrepreneurs and great managers.

Russi Mody’s genius lay in human resources. Billimoria recollects a story of Russi saying hello to a new driver and then recognizing him when he visited Bombay the next time. Seth used to write a letter to Billimoria when financial results came out and Kerkar was on his board. These characters were professionally top-notch.

In those days, the licenses and approvals required to do business were innumerable. India’s colonial rent-seeking and parasitic bureaucracy made life extremely difficult for India’s business leaders. To make matters worse, corruption seemed to come from above lower levels and a diabolical black economy. Bureaucrat flunkeys sitting in a crumbling office controlled both managerial remuneration and managerial appointments.

During such a torrid time, JRD and his team rose up to the challenge. Seth made money from the soda ash plants in Gujarat and bought tea gardens in Assam. He was extraordinarily entrepreneurial. Kerkar was uniquely suited for the hotel business. He understood hospitality extremely well.

JRD’s personal integrity was unimpeachable. Even Dhirubhai Ambai, arguably India’s greatest entrepreneur, had great respect for JRD. When Billimoria met JRD, the legendary business leader asked Billimoria about his career, his education, his family and why he did not settle down in the UK. Billimoria gave the truthful answer that he had only returned to India because of his parents. He left after meeting JRD with a sense of happiness, satisfaction and a great deal of respect. JRD had inspired Billimoria to work for him.

The Tata story after 1991

The Tata Group was long-established, solid and very strong. So, foreign companies coming to India wanted to tie up with the Tatas, and 1991 turned out to be very good for the Tata Group. There was no shortage of opportunities. Sony first came to Tata when they entered the Indian market.

The only criticism that one can make of JRD is that he should have handed over the reins five years earlier. Every major manager thought of himself as the best qualified to take over, and a struggle for succession ensued. Billimoria remembers the post-1991 period as “a difficult time” with this struggle causing friction within the company.

Billimoria began as the deputy CEO of Tata Sons but was given charge of Tata Press in 1990. Management’s relationship with labor was very poor at the time. In one incident, the union locked the senior management into a conference room. Billmoria was able to get through to his chairman Jamshed Bhabha, the brother of the legendary nuclear scientist Homi Jehangir Bhabha, who summoned the police. The fractious situation only calmed down when the police threatened to open fire.

Billimoria sacked the union leader, who turned out to be a coward. Soon after, the tide turned and the Tata Press prospered. Billimoria had a glorious 14 years in charge. Tata Press published the Yellow Pages, children’s books and niche magazines that cover cars, travel et al. An arbitrary legislative change made print expansion impossible. So, Tata Press went into audiovisual production, but the foray into Bollywood was an unmitigated disaster. The movie business turned out to be dodgy.

McKinsey came in and identified Tata Press as a non-core company. It was put up for sale. ICICI Ventures bought Tata Press, and Billimoria left in three months. ICICI Ventures engaged in asset-stripping. Its focus was on the real estate owned by Tata Press, not on the underlying business. The company was run down to the bone, and Billimoria left to start a new company, backed by Shapoorji Pallonji Group and HDFC. Over 150 people joined this new venture, and the company still exists today after 20 years, even though Billimoria has retired.

[Matthew Knudson produced this podcast.]

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

The post Rare Personal Memories of JRD Tata and Life in Business appeared first on Fair Observer.

The British ran India with a colonial bureaucracy designed to extract wealth, not to create it. When India won its independence in 1947, many Indians expected the dividend of independence to come in quickly. In some ways, it did — during the 1950s and 1960s, India expanded into nearly all manufacturing sectors, save for high tech and aviation. But the expansion did not survive the 1970s.

While India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru espoused many socialist policies, inspired by the then-successful Soviet Union, he was still relatively favorable to business. When his daughter Indira Gandhi assumed power, she lurched left and decimated business. During her reign in the 1970s, India became a socialist state ruled by officers of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and their underlings. These sycophantic officials imposed onerous regulation, high taxes and extortionate bribes, suffocating industry and squeezing growth.

Socialism killed Indian business

Under Gandhi, India nationalized key industries and heavily regulated the others. The IAS became solely in-charge of formulating and executing policy. Note that the IAS is the successor to the British Raj’s colonial Indian Civil Service (ICS). The original mission of the ICS was to collect taxes and deindustrialize India. After independence, control over the economy gave politicians opportunities for graft and rent-seeking. Together with their bureaucrat lackeys, they created a system that was altogether hostile to business.

The infamous license-permit-quota raj decimated business. In this Kafkaesque system, entrepreneurs had to run from pillar to post and grovel before bureaucrats if not bribe them. Approval from dozens of offices was necessary to do anything. After months and, at times, years of running around offices, entrepreneurs received licenses that were narrowly tailored to specific activities with strict limits on productivity. If their production exceeded the limits imposed by their license, bureaucrats levied hefty fines and extracted heavy bribes.

Gandhi was voted out in 1977 but the hodgepodge Janata Party that took charge was socialist as well and business did not get a break. India’s socialist DNA permeates all political parties, including the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Having tasted blood, politicians and IAS officers cannot let go of the commanding heights of the economy.

Politicians have to appeal to a poor and uneducated populace. So, populism akin to the Latin American variety is always a temptation. Until recently, labor unions were affiliated with political parties, making manufacturing tricky. 

Change because of external shock

Despite the economy growing at the proverbial Hindu rate of growth, India did not change course. In the end, an external shock changed the Indian system. In 1991, the Gulf War increased oil prices. By this time, the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse and could not send cheap oil to India to bail its socialist de facto ally out. This led to a severe balance of payments crisis and India had no choice but to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and embrace market reforms.

The IMF forced India to liberalize its economy, lower its tariffs and open its markets. Many expected Indian businesses to fold in the face of foreign competition. Instead, India’s economy grew faster than ever before. It turns out that socialism, not Hinduism, was holding back the economy. Foreign investment and capital goods flowed into India. Manufacturing got a second wind after the first burst after independence. 

The boost of 1991 petered out for manufacturing in 2001 when China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO). India liberalized trade but did not lift restrictions on domestic business. The government also did not invest in infrastructure. This meant that businesses like Jain’s manufacturing operations could not keep up with their Chinese competitors. 

Rare Story of a Global Indian Manufacturing Success

Chinese manufacturers were able to make things with speed and scale. Chinese imports flooded Indian markets. Even as this economic tsunami was hitting the economy, India’s bureaucrats sat on files forever, demanded nonstop bribes and strangled business with red tape. High costs on inputs such as water, power and transportation made it far more expensive to manufacture domestically than import from China. As a result, many industries collapsed entirely. Liberalization internationally and overregulation domestically proved to be an unmitigated disaster for the manufacturing sector.

The toxic politician-bureaucrat nexus

After independence in 1947, India’s economic model was inspired by the Soviet Union. In this communist Mecca, experts did the economic planning and engineers implemented their plans. In India, economic planning and execution are both in the hands of an omniscient and omnipotent bureaucracy with IAS officers as feudal barons and politicians as de facto rulers. The IAS officers are invariably generalists, with little professional knowledge or deep interest in economic policymaking or the sectors they control. Bureaucrats occupy their position not because of expertise but because of loyalty to politicians and are answerable to no one.

Politicians continue to see business not as a driver of the economy but as a cash cow to squeeze for personal fortunes and election funds. In spite of the rhetoric about pro-manufacturing policies and promoting growth, the Indian system is still essentially one in which politicians dole out freebies to get votes and squeeze industry to pay the bill with heavy taxes. Ultimately, the poor are not helped either, because they see these taxes get translated into higher prices. They also miss out on manufacturing jobs and increased productivity because Indian industry is cut off at the knees and cannot compete with its foreign counterparts. Ultimately, neither the poor nor the entrepreneurs are enriched. Only politicians and bureaucrats laugh all the way to the bank. In India, this Batman-Robin duo is not robbing Peter to pay Paul, but instead robbing both Peter and Paul.

Businesses routinely find themselves compelled to make campaign contributions to politicians, lest they punish business owners with bureaucratic harassment. Such is the convoluted and complicated law of the land that it is impossible to follow it even after making superhuman efforts. So, bureaucrats can shut down any business for alleged breach of the law. As innumerable entrepreneurs and manufacturers know only too well, every bureaucrat inspector finds some grounds to find an infraction, leaving them a choice between a bribe and a fine. Inspectors can also arbitrarily shut down factories. 

The Indian system does not allow corruption inadvertently. It is corrupt by design. Today, Indians impose a new colonialism on their fellow Indians. Indian politicians and bureaucrats operate in a system designed for extracting wealth, not creating it.

Here Is Why Indian Manufacturing Is Struggling

Unfortunately, Jain sees no change on the horizon. If things continue as they have, India will fail to achieve a manufacturing boom that emulates the 1991–2001 period.

Jain believes that India must take a page out of Japan’s book and outsource decision-making power to professionals. Boards of experts should craft regulations in consultation with industry in the interests of long-term growth, not short-sighted political gains. It is good governance, not natural resources or comparative advantage, that made Japan an economic superpower. India can be an economic superpower too if it enlists policymakers with expertise who act in the national interest instead of petty self-interest.

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

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

The post An Indian Entrepreneur Talks Growth, Regulation and Corruption appeared first on Fair Observer.

For cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, the data is not stored on any individual’s computer but is dispersed throughout a network. What the individual possesses is a passcode, and if the passcode is lost, the money becomes irretrievable. Some people have lost very large sums of money in this way. Furthermore, if a thief gains access to the passcode, they can easily steal the money. This happens very often.

Loss and theft are just one kind of risk for Bitcoin users. A still greater risk is volatility. A currency is meant to perform two functions: it is a store of value over time and a means of exchange between economic actors. Bitcoin is not a reliable store of value over time, because its value varies very rapidly and unpredictably from day to day and month to month. A sum of bitcoin may rapidly be worth much less than what one has purchased it for. 

Neither is Bitcoin a very useful medium of exchange, because most retailers will not accept it. Because of its anonymity, Bitcoin is instead commonly used for illicit purchases, such as narcotics or banned pornography. So, its lack of acceptance and its volatility risk make Bitcoin a very poor currency.

Bitcoin’s volatility attracts speculators hoping to profit off of the wide swings in prices, but the volatility hasn’t stopped people from trying to use Bitcoin as a currency, either. This is especially true for those who live in countries where the official currency itself is not very stable. El Salvador’s unconventional and authoritarian young president Nayib Bukele has even made Bitcoin an official currency — a move which, in McDonald’s view, has been an unmitigated disaster. The digital currency is not accessible to most Salvadorans and has likely only served to enrich a small number of people.

How does cryptocurrency work?

The technology that makes Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies possible is a “blockchain,” which is a networked set of computers that each keep a record, or “ledger,” of transactions made on the network. The computers verify the authenticity of each other’s ledgers.

In order to do this, the computers need to play a sort of digital guessing game, or “proof of work,” to deliver the correct codes to each other and authenticate transactions. This operation takes a lot of processing power, but it prevents hackers from altering the ledger, as it would not be feasible for them to perform the proof of work themselves to alter all of the computers on the blockchain.

Such self-checking networks are useful in more applications than cryptocurrency alone. They could for example be used for banks to compare notes with each other and prevent fraud.

Poor regulation and fraud galore

When cryptocurrency was becoming popular over the last decade, the surge in public interest arose much more quickly than a response from regulators. This created a “wild west” environment in which fraudsters proliferated. One very common phenomenon was the creation of a new cryptocurrency, or “altcoin,” which would quickly attract attention and a lot of buyers. Many of these altcoins were backed by nothing except hope. Before long, the creators would pocket the money and have delivered nothing but a worthless asset in exchange.

To remedy this problem, “stablecoins” backed by official currencies proliferated. These too have a fair share of problems: unpredictable exchange fees, lack of transparency and insufficient currency reserves to serve as the backing for the coins. Thus, underneath the façade of stability, stablecoins are highly unreliable.

There really is no practical reason to use cryptocurrencies rather than banks to transfer money; they are less trustworthy, slower and often cost more to make transactions. Much of their dedicated following has an ideological rather than financial purpose; libertarians who crave anonymity and shun government currency are often fanatics for cryptocurrency. Many more have simply been attracted by the flurry of attention, creating a bubble which is unsupported by fundamentals and ready to burst. The cryptocurrency market has already lost over half of its peak value, tumbling from $3 trillion to $1.2 trillion.

McDonald predicts the continued erosion of the market. Cryptocurrency’s early advantages will disappear with time as its popularity deflates and ways are found to circumvent the privacy that the technology initially offered. What is more interesting for the future, however, are the ways in which blockchain technology may be made useful in other applications. Secure, shared records could be beneficial for a wide variety of tasks.

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

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

The post What You Need to Know About Cryptocurrencies appeared first on Fair Observer.

Even as India grows at a fast clip, the government is achieving great success in poverty reduction. In fact, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, instances of poverty reduction ever is underway. Indians are better fed, living longer, growing taller and doing better than ever.

Fundamentals of growth

India is growing strongly because of strong fundamentals. The services sector is doing well. India is now the back-office office of the world. Its services exports are rising. Domestic demand for services is growing strongly, too. India now has over 100 unicorns (startups valued at over $1 billion) this number is only likely to grow. Tourism has rebounded sharply after Covid and it is largely thanks to Indian, not foreign, tourists.

The Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) is red-hot at 57.7 in July. The PMI measures the performance of the manufacturing sector, and a score above 50 indicates a positive development. In the past, India skipped the manufacturing stage. Indira Gandhi’s leftward lurch and the Janata Party experiment imposed socialism that bound the economy in red tape and led to the so-called Hindu rate of growth.

The current government is addressing legacy issues by building infrastructure at record speed and addressing red tape issues. Airports, roads, ports and now railways are coming up. This economic activity boosts the GDP and builds assets for the future. As in the case of the US in the 1950s and China in the 1980s, this infrastructure building program is resulting in a multiplier effect for the economy.

Perspective on Entrepreneurship Over the Years in India

Growth has also increased because India is finally an economic union, not just a political union. In 2017, the government introduced the goods and sales tax (GST) across the country, making India an economic union. Before GST, businesses had to pay all sorts of taxes and tariffs to state governments and the national government. Exporting from one part of the country to another was arduous. This socialist command and control system was a millstone around the neck for the economy. Now, this Soviet legacy is gone, giving the economy a great boost.

In 1991, India liberalized just as the Soviet Union was tottering and the Gulf War sent oil prices spiraling. Entry barriers for businesses came down and the economy boomed. However, exit barriers remained, creating zombie companies and hurting banks. From 2006 to 2014, India’s banks went on a lending binge. As a result, they were in poor shape with huge amounts of bad debt on their books.

In 2016, the government instituted the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The goal was to clean up the banks. The IBC instituted a brand new system that turned out to be spectacularly successful. Now, creditors could finally enforce their rights. It turned out that only 50 companies comprised two-thirds of the problem. Of these, a third—the dirty dozen—comprised a third of the whole economy’s problem. Banks were able to claim assets from these companies, and money came back even from supposedly bankrupt companies for this reason. As a result, banks are a lot healthier today.

India’s innovative Covid economic policy

While advanced economies like the US, the UK, Germany and others saw Covid as a demand-side shock. In response, these governments distributed stimulus checks. The Indian government, on the other hand, saw Covid as a supply-side shock. People still wanted to spend money but they could not do so because of government restrictions. Lockdowns, restrictions on public gatherings and the fear of coronavirus were really supply-side issues.

When businesses like bars and restaurants did not get cash from customers, this meant they could not pay their employees, suppliers or landlords. Hence, the economy experienced a payments problem that cascaded from one business to another, causing a defaults problem. The government saw this as a cash flow problem and moved to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This support was a safety net, not an inflationary measure. The government guaranteed payments to SMEs thanks to Aadhaar—the unique identification number granted to all the residents of India—and bank accounts linked to the relevant Aadhaar numbers, enabling targeted relief to those most affected by the pandemic. The government also offered 800 million people access to free food. 

Five Urgent Economic Reforms for India

If the government took a supply-side approach to Covid, it has followed a Keynesian approach to infrastructure. It has a prudent debt-GDP ratio of 83% and the focus on value creation means that this debt is being spent not on populist short-term measures but long-term national interest. 

In brief, the government follows a pragmatic approach to economic policymaking. It makes continuous adjustments, instead of implementing some grand design. Policymakers trust the market more than previous governments and believe in nudging markets, not prescribing to or circumscribing them.

The government takes complaints over GST seriously. It is addressing the concerns over “tax terrorism” and understands that the current system is far from perfect. In fact, the government introduced GST knowing full well that the new system would have glitches. The idea was to fix the system as it went along. The government drew inspiration from agile management, a project management methodology that uses an iterative and flexible approach. It is addressing complaints about the arbitrariness of tax collection and the way GST is collected. The government knows that the new system is much better than the one it replaced and will resolve its teething troubles.

The government is working on ensuring that big companies like United Phosphorus Limited do not move out of India. It also wants businesses operating in the country to incorporate in India, not Singapore, and new companies are incorporating in the country on a regular basis.

Fundamentally, the government has created one common national market, facilitated creative destruction through IBC, helped SMEs survive Covid, built infrastructure at record speed and stimulated fast growth.

What are the next wave of reforms?

India has made most of the framework reforms by now. It is now bringing in process reforms. One example of this is the patent system. Earlier, it took five years to patent anything. Taking so long ensured that, even if the patent was granted, the patent was often out of date.

In 2016, Indian authorities granted 9,000 patents. Now, they are granting 30,000 patents in a year. This figure is much less than the US figure of 350,000 and the Chinese one of 500,000. India is boosting its patent system to boost innovation and become more competitive globally.

Similarly, voluntarily closing companies is a lot easier now. The government is shutting down defunct departments. It has closed down the Soviet-inspired Tariff Commission that set internal tariffs within the country. In the post-GST era, these tariffs are gone, and it makes sense that this vestigial commission had to go. The government has also put a dent in the dominance of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), which lacks domain expertise. It is fluid and open to new ideas.

The government recognizes that judicial reforms are necessary to unleash higher economic growth. Over 40 million cases are pending in the courts. Processes are archaic, and enforcement of contracts is poor. This sclerotic and dysfunctional judicial system adds to transaction costs in the economy and slows down economic growth. Reforms will boost the economy greatly.

Administrative reforms would also boost growth. The operative issue is how to get the Indian government to do what it is supposed to do. The current system has a structural flaw: it was an imperial system, designed for control. Therefore, the system engages in rent-seeking.

After independence in 1947, India doubled down on this control model by adopting socialism. Henceforth, the bureaucracy controlled everything. Since 1991, India has made progress by withdrawing bureaucracy, not reforming it. Now, the country has to move from the model where the bureaucracy controls everything to one where it provides public services. Service delivery is the next frontier.

India’s Urban Middle Class Craves Better Quality of Life

The district magistrate (DM) in charge of a district or a municipal commissioner in charge of a relatively large city is invariably an IAS officer who is far too young and inexperienced. The DM might be treated as a god in the district, but this IAS officer has too little real power. The officer cannot draw upon the resources of the state or national governments. The officer is too junior to IAS officers sitting in state capitals and New Delhi, and is more often than not intimidated by them.

Such is the flaw in the system that these ground-level junior IAS officers could not perform even if they were geniuses. In any case, these IAS officers have little incentive to deliver. More senior officers should be DMs and municipal commissioners, with longer tenures. Elected mayors should have more power. Better governance will lead to higher economic growth.

On the whole, the economic reforms are directionally right. The government has to keep doing some of the things it is doing, do important things it is not yet doing, bring judicial, administrative and process reforms, and India’s economy will boom.

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

The post Sanjeev Sanyal Makes Sense of the Indian Economy appeared first on Fair Observer.

Saraf himself had scholarships to two American universities. However, one night he asked himself what was wrong with his country and decided to stay back. Of course, his mother was chuffed. Saraf did not have a clue as to what to do but soon began working for his cousins who manufactured electric motors. Today, the REMI Group is recognized as a pioneer in manufacturing electric and geared motors in India.

His relatives packed him off to the German Democratic Republic, better known as East Germany, where Saraf learned the tricks of the trade. He stayed on after work to observe their processes and copied the industrial secrets they had not shared with this young Indian engineer. Saraf did what the Americans did to the British and what the Chinese are doing to the Americans in the never-ending cycle of acquiring technology.

An extraordinary entrepreneurial journey

Eventually, Saraf and his brother (also an IIT Bombay alumnus) decided to make closures for 200-liter steel drums, which store oil, chemicals and other liquids. Drums have two screwed openings, one two-inch and the other three-quarters-inch. The two brothers took on an American company that monopolized the drum closure market—and won. Today, Technocraft Industries India Limited, the company started by the Saraf brothers in 1972, is the only other market player in the space.

Making these screwed closures is complicated. Technocraft Industries’ secretive American competitors shredded their scrap to avoid anyone reverse engineering their product. The Saraf brothers nearly went bankrupt in trying to crack the code for making these closures. They made many mistakes and managed to succeed despite having no resources.

Saraf credits his education at IIT Bombay, which taught him and his brother to think outside the box, go deep and never give up. Both brothers plowed profits back into the business. They kept improving their technology and reducing their workforce every year. Efficiency gains helped Technocraft Industries become a world leader by 1990. They were exporting to more than 40 countries.

About 135 million steel drums are produced every year. Saraf’s company produces 65 million closures and, unlike their competitors, they do not make their own drums. Therefore, they have no captive market and give their customers a top product as well as many value-added services.

Earlier, Technocraft Industries imported its steel. Since 1995, Saraf’s company has been buying all its steel from Jindal Steel Works (JSW). Today, the company has two factories in India and one in China. This factory serves the Chinese market and produces 15 million closures per year. This figure is in addition to the 65 million produced in India.

Manufacturing: India v China

Because the Saraf brothers are in India, quality control is better, supervision is easier and volumes are higher. In China, manufacturing costs are higher. Power costs more, as does labor. Chinese steel is cheaper but medium, small and micro enterprises (MSME) pack what they produce and do not do quality control. So, Technocraft Industries Limited would have to send eight to ten people to train their suppliers. Now, things are better.

The biggest disadvantage in India is the bureaucracy, the red tape and the corruption. Saraf takes the view that corruption in India is far worse than in China. Thankfully, in over ten years, no inspector has ever visited Saraf’s factory in Anhui to ask for a bribe or cause Saraf any grief. In India, the laws are unclear, bureaucrats have far too much discretion and no deadlines when it comes to making decisions. In fact, India’s officials can sit on a file for years. There is no accountability for these officials. Furthermore, goalposts change constantly and decisions of officials are arbitrary. In contrast, Chinese officials make decisions in a time-bound manner. In business, time is money and India’s officials make life very difficult for manufacturers.

India’s colonial state was anti-manufacturing and anti-business. Its job was to cut Indian competition off at the knees so that British industry could use India as a captive market. Since independence, the government has tried to industrialize, but officials have become corrupt and want bribes. So, transaction costs have simultaneously gone up and are not accurately measurable. Manufacturers have to show false profits to pay venal officials.

Why are Indian bureaucrats anti-business?

After independence in 1947, the government turned socialist and made the paternalistic assumption that Indians were ignorant and all sectors needed regulation. This mindset is fallacious because Indians have proven themselves to be an entrepreneurial lot around the world. The license-permit-quota raj hobbled the Indian economy. Till 1991, this shackled the Indian economy. 

Officials gave manufacturers a license to manufacture. They set production limits. This penalized efficiency gains. The government was obsessed with controlling the economy. The Aditya Birla Group wanted to produce pulp in India, but the government refused permission, and this led the industrial group to set up its factory in Thailand. Today, the Aditya Birla Group imports pulp from its own factory in Thailand. As a result, India missed out on the multiplier effect of jobs, incomes and wealth.

This Kafkaesque system encouraged shady players. For example, the Steel Controller of India gave licenses for steel production. There were such controllers for all sorts of industries. Shady operators got licenses without having factories. This operator could not have used the steel he hypothetically produced because the license had a user condition: the one with a license had to use the steel himself. However, this operator was neither manufacturing nor using steel. Honest manufacturers were forced to buy steel in the black market from this operator, though, because he owned a license. The system was incorrigibly corrupt and horribly inefficient, holding India back for decades.

What must the government do?

Saraf points to the success of Indians in information technology (IT) and other sectors. In 1998, the IT industry was $40 million and today it is $200 billion, a figure IT pioneer Ashank Desai points to very proudly. Saraf attributes this success to the lack of controls over the IT sector.

As a man with dirt under his fingernails, Saraf proposes reforms. He advises the government to incentivize revenue collectors in each district to promote industry. If industry does not increase in their district, then the district officials should suffer. With 766 districts, India should have 600 industry clusters. The government must emulate Germany and create its own Mittelstand, the MSME of that European industrial superpower.

Saraf suggests simplifying extremely complicated land laws. Converting land to industrial use is still extremely hard. The government has realized the need for industrialization and brought in schemes like Production Linked Incentive. Yet, things have still not changed at the ground level. For instance, India’s forest laws are crazy, and officials are worse. They have designated land without a single tree as “forest.” This means no manufacturer can start a factory on such so-called forest land.

Instead of such insane classification, the government could require manufacturers who cut trees for new factories to plant and maintain 20 trees for every tree they cut down. The Chinese and, especially, the Swiss have this policy. Forest cover in European countries has increased because of incentives to plant trees, not barriers to starting factories.

The government must lower transaction costs as well. It must make banking policy simpler. Currently, banks ask for high collateral. This shuts out new entrants. As a result, entry barriers are the biggest obstacle to growth in manufacturing. Saraf remarks that, after a successful entry, life is easy even as compared to China, but the first five years are hell.

Saraf is no free-market absolutist though. He believes that there is a case for government intervention. The state has a role to play. India suffers from an extraordinary skill shortage. The country of over 1.4 billion people lacks good engineers and technicians. Currently, the government is paying dole to encourage people to get technical training, but the carrot approach is not working.

So, the government must use a stick instead. The government must make it mandatory for industry to employ only certified skilled labor. This would lead to the quality of masons, plumbers and electricians improving. This approach would be cheaper and better. India would produce higher-quality goods, and the economy would grow faster.

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

The post Rare Story of a Global Indian Manufacturing Success appeared first on Fair Observer.

In this episode of FO° Podcasts, he gives an intimate perspective on India’s economic choices after independence in 1947, India’s IIT experience, and his own entrepreneurial journey. He points out how India has come a long way from the days of Nehruvian socialism but still has a long way to go. 

About one million people enter the workforce every year. Many people with higher education, including PhDs, take up low-skilled jobs and struggle to have decent careers. Kilachand believes that India can do much more to drive growth and jobs. Its teeming millions could contribute to national growth with the right policies and investments.

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

The post Perspective on Entrepreneurship Over the Years in India appeared first on Fair Observer.

The US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were both spectacular tactical successes, but the strategy was muddy. President George W. Bush had no intention of committing the US to nation-building. However, he made it all but impossible to avoid nation-building by destroying existing power structures. The US found itself in a situation where withdrawal would have led to a power vacuum that bad actors could have occupied again, defeating the raison d’être of the invasions.

An idiotic ideological policy

The US followed a fanatical policy of de-Ba’athification. Ideological American neoconservatives excluded all Ba’ath Party members from public roles. This removed not only party elites but also rank-and-file civil servants such as policemen, firefighters and teachers. Note that they were not ideological Baathists but had become members of the party to make their lives easier in an authoritarian society. This extremely unwise de-Ba’athification policy led to social chaos and sectarian violence ensued. 

After decades of persecution, Shias exacted brutal revenge on Sunnis. Their numbers had always been greater but Sunnis had been the dominant minority under Saddam Hussein. With Hussein gone, the Iran-backed Shias now had their chance. Shia dominance led to a push back and the Islamic State emerged on the back of Sunni resentment. 

Iraqis were far from nostalgic for good old Saddam. Yet they could not forgive the US for the new Shia-Sunni bloodbath and Hobbesian anarchy that claimed thousands of lives and ruined the economy. An insurgency against evil Uncle Sam became inevitable.

The trouble with insurgencies

Insurgencies are nearly impossible to suppress with an army of any size. Britain, an experienced imperial power, found putting down insurgency in Northern Ireland hard enough. The US is institutionally unsuited for and inexperienced in running an empire. Trying to put down an insurgency in a much larger country on the other side of the world was a task beyond Washington, DC.

Although the events unfolding were unambiguously an insurgency, the Bush administration insisted to the public that what was going on was a war against terrorists. Al-Qaeda’s presence in Iraq was proffered as evidence for GWOT. In reality, al-Qaeda was there because the US had created the vacuum for it to flourish. Al-Qaeda saw the insurgency as an opportunity to kill American soldiers and continue waging jihad.

In 2004, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi founded the even more extremist “al-Qaeda in Iraq.” The central al-Qaeda leadership’s control over this group was tenuous. It was unable to prevent Zarqawi from conducting brutal killings, not of “infidel” Americans, but of Iraqi citizens. This morphed into the Islamic State and swept not only across Sunni Iraq but also Sunni Syria, which was ruled by the Shia Assad clan.

The World This Week: The Middle East’s Thirty Years’ War

The US was unprepared to deal with this unraveling of the tapestry of the Middle East. Eventually, the insurgency in Iraq took a toll on the US and sapped its will to continue the good fight in the sands of the region.

Torture and the soul of America

Despite the horrors of war in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the US was geographically separated from them. However, the GWOT had a profoundly corrosive influence on American democracy itself.

Americans have long had a horror of torture. They prohibited it in their founding documents and vigorously prosecuted the crime after World War II. During the GWOT, US personnel tortured prisoners for information. They had orders to use “any means necessary” and “enhanced interrogation techniques” became a euphemism for torture.

As torture became normalized, it seeped into the wider culture. Unsettlingly, a majority of Americans under the age of 35—those who came of age during the war—now find torture acceptable. For earlier generations of Americans, it was and is unthinkable.

Disaster can make nations turn against even their most cherished principles. After the Romans saw their army annihilated by Hannibal at Cannae, they turned to human sacrifice out of desperation. The 9/11 attacks had much the same psychological effect on Americans. Their country had been attacked, and Americans were ready to do anything in response.

Glenn had the mortifying experience of seeing his fellow CIA officers carry out orders from the president which they knew were against the law. What they were doing was not merely immoral and illegal, but it represented the breakdown of the rule of law. In the US, it is the law, instituted by the people, that rules—not the whims of individual men. This principle was violated repeatedly during the war with officers choosing to obey illegal orders rather than refusing them.

Laws are meaningless unless there is a culture of respect for them. Torture had created a culture in which political loyalty mattered more than the law. One can trace a direct line from the erosion of the values of democracy and legality during the Bush years to the notorious attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

A hit to America’s international influence

American neoconservative hawks had hoped that invading Iraq would cow down Iran. This revolutionary Shia power would be less disruptive and aggressive in the region. The mullahs of Tehran would learn the consequences of going too far. 

Sadly, this strategy could not have backfired more spectacularly. Today, Iran’s power extends across the region. Now that Saddam, Iran’s Sunni archrival, is gone, Iran has little to stop it from building and extending its network of Shia allies. Not only have Tehran’s mullahs now expanded their influence in Iraq, but they have also strengthened ties with Lebanon’s Shia militant group Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria and even Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Syria itself is a casualty of the Iraq war. Sunni insurgent groups based in Iraq destabilized the country, attempting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. In the eyes of fanatical Sunnis, Assad is a Shia Alawite and hence an infidel. Weakened by soaring temperatures, prolonged droughts and failed harvests, Syria was already fragile. The uneasy coexistence of its religious and ethnic minorities shattered when the Islamic State rose, precipitating a bloody civil war.

Assad committed numerous human rights excesses to stay in power. He has clung on to office in Damascus thanks to Iran and Russia. Now, he is being invited back to the table by other Arab autocrats. Israel, with Lebanon and Syria on its northern borders, has been sounding alarm bells for a while. Clearly, US power in the Middle East stands weakened.

How 9/11 and the War on Terror Shaped the World

In Europe, both the 2003 Iraq War and the GWOT went down very poorly. Europeans saw this US-led war without UN-approval as overreach by hubristic superpower. Emerging powers such as Brazil, India and China were uncomfortable with this invasion as well. In brief, the US attracted the ire not only of much of the Muslim world but also a majority of the world. In retrospect, the Iraq War was a historic blunder.

Eye off the ball

As an intelligence officer, Glenn studied al-Qaeda in much detail. This shadowy organization was not a worldwide empire, but a loose coalition of a few hundred people. There are no more than a few thousand jihadi terrorists in the world at any time. They are a real and present danger, but not one that should consume the majority of the forces and public attention of the world’s largest power. Counterterrorism should be the domain of highly skilled professionals, who can eliminate or capture terrorists with minimal fanfare.

The US armed forces, the largest military apparatus that humanity has ever seen, spent 20 years molding itself as a counterterrorism force while ignoring the elephant in the room: China. In a world where America is once again faced with a peer rival, it has no business spending this amount of attention on smaller issues, dangerous though they may be. Glenn takes the view that only after President Joseph Biden has now finally cut Afghanistan loose will the military be able to reshape itself for an intense conventional war.

During the GWOT, the CIA, too, was reshaped into a counterterrorism tool. It spent two decades integrating with special forces. However, the CIA was never supposed to be a paramilitary organization. It is an intelligence organization. The CIA’s mission is to detect and predict threats, not merely to assist the military for counterterrorism operations. The Agency’s institutional culture must recover this focus if it is to continue to carry out that mission effectively.

Even on the counterterrorism front, the GWOT created unbalanced priorities. Glenn argues that the Bush administration ignored the intelligence community’s repeated warnings about the magnitude of the threat posed by domestic, white nationalists. They insisted that Islamist terrorism was to be considered the top threat. The focus on Islamic terrorism likewise diverted the necessary attention and resources from the growing cyber threats, a vulnerability which either lone or state-sponsored actors could exploit.

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

On top of all of this, the myopia about terrorism and the politicization of threat assessments has prevented Republican administrations from taking adequate steps to address the dangers of climate change, which poses a much more credible threat to the US homeland than any enemy army.

All of this comes on top of a profound restructuring of the Republican party. The party has always had a strong isolationist faction, but this was controlled by an internationalist establishment that has been mostly defenestrated. The Iraq War discredited the neoconservatives and created a culture of lawlessness, paving the way for the ascendancy of the brash, populist and frankly authoritarian faction in dominance today.

The Iraq War and the GWOT have conspired to produce a situation in which America has largely been caught with its pants down in the Pacific. China has been building up while the US has been distracted and divided. Thankfully, Washington is waking up to reality now, but the situation may be much more manageable if the US had reacted earlier and with greater vigor.

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

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

The post Consequences of the War on Terror and the Iraq War appeared first on Fair Observer.

Chopra argues that India’s earliest self-conception is a union of diverse cultures. The British divided the country into 11 provinces for administrative convenience. Linguistic considerations did not matter to them. Of course, there were over 500 princely states as well.

In 1947, India inherited nine provinces from the British. The incorporation of princely states by this young country was a feat of extraordinary statesmanship by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. For a while, the country retained the borders of the imperial states until linguistic identity asserted itself.

This identity led to new linguistic states. Most recently, the formation of Telangana after splitting up Andhra Pradesh has boosted the demand for smaller states. 
The formation of states is a story of the growing democratization of Bharat, as Sanjeev Chopra’s book, We, the People of the States of Bharat. You can buy the book here.

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

The post The Revealing Story of the Changing Map of India appeared first on Fair Observer.

Afghanistan’s Taliban regime had given refuge to Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. They planned and executed terror attacks against the US from their base in Afghanistan. In spite of US demands for extradition, the Taliban hosted al-Qaeda leaders. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, which killed more than 3,000 innocent people on US soil, the gloves came off. The US invoked NATO’s Article 5, calling all allies to its defense, an invocation unprecedented in history. The NATO allies, in cooperation with the local Northern Alliance, took Afghanistan by storm.

Bin Laden, who had expected a decadent, pluralistic and materialistic United States simply to fall over after an attack like 9/11, must have been sorely surprised by the ferocity of the US response. The allied invasion destroyed Taliban rule in just six weeks and inaugurated a new era in Afghanistan.

Trapped in Afghanistan

However, bin Laden escaped and this prolonged the US presence in Afghanistan. Soon, an Islamist insurgency led by the remaining elements of the Taliban broke out. President George W. Bush understood from the start that nation-building was an unrealistic goal and promised not to engage in it. However, the US soon found itself unable to pull out of Afghanistan.

The decision to remain was influenced by the assessment, which Carle regards as flawed, that al-Qaeda remained as a potent force in Afghanistan. The intelligence community sincerely believed that al-Qaeda continued to be a coherent and organized global existential threat to Western democracy. Carle points out that it is implausible that a secret resistance of any such magnitude would be able to maintain such hierarchical discipline, especially in such a fragmented country as Afghanistan.

The US had no plausible plan for victory, but felt compelled to stay. The cost of leaving, thereby enabling terrorists to regroup and tarnishing America’s credibility as a world power, was just too high. But it was a fool’s errand. Afghanistan is simply not a nation. It is a region populated by numerous ethnic groups, over whom the Pashtuns exert a dubious suzerainty. Pakistan, which has a sizable Pashtun population of its own, has a vested interest in keeping Afghanistan weak. It supported the Taliban chiefly to achieve strategic depth against India and to keep the influence of rivals like Iran and India weak in Afghanistan.

The Iraq Blunder

Building an Afghan nation was already impossible, but it was more than impossible by the diversion of resources toward Iraq, starting as early as the autumn of 2002.

Why, we must ask, did the intelligence community see Saddam as such a vital target? The Arab socialist dictator was no natural ally of al-Qaeda. He held many of their operatives in prison, and tortured them. Even still, the US administration managed to convince itself of a connection between the two.

At the time, terrorism concerns focused on state sponsors or state-like sponsors of terrorism: Libya, Iran, Pakistan and the Palestine Liberation Organization. US intelligence failed to recognize that al-Qaeda was a new type of threat, searching instead for a state as a culprit.

While Saddam had occasionally allowed terrorist factions to operate in Iraq, there was no evidence of coordination between the Ba’athist government and al-Qaeda’s high command. US intelligence officials mistakenly made the connection between Iraq and Afghanistan and neoconservative ideologues seized up this assessment. Ironically, this connection became reality when the US roped both unrelated wars into a single “Global War on Terror.”

American leadership did indeed have valid concerns that Saddam, who had previously pursued nuclear weapons, might seek them again and potentially use nuclear or biological weapons against Israel. The administration perceived Israel as an island of democracy, which America had a sacred duty to defend. Beyond security concerns, though, neoconservative elites in Washington saw Iraq as an opportunity to create an Arab democracy that would reshape the Middle East. As per their utopian vision, Iraq would serve as a beacon of democracy and, quite implausibly, as an example to Iran of what happens when a regime goes too far. In the end, the Iraq that emerged was much more amenable to the Islamic Republic’s interests than Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The Shias in Iraq are now under Tehran’s influence.

US leadership was mistaken on many points, but it was not simply irrational. The threat posed by international terrorism was real, and Americans had died. Perhaps, though, a more targeted, counterterrorism approach carried out by intelligence operatives and special operations teams might have better served the US administration. Washington needed a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer.

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

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

The post The War on Terror: 22 Years On appeared first on Fair Observer.