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

Social divisions and political polarization

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

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

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

European economies are in big trouble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity politics and culture wars

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

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

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

Economic and social concerns, media and technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

Globalization and social disruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key budget measures

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

Significant tax changes include:

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

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

Will it work?

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Rachel Reeves Delivers Important Post-Brexit Budget appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

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

The proposed solution: BRICS Bridge

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

Different visions of global influence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Make Sense of BRICS Summit in Russia appeared first on Fair Observer.

Timeline of escalations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Israel and Iran go to war?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Mario Draghi Calls for a New European Industrial Policy appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

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

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

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

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

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Colossal and Historic American Election appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

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

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

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

What is the way forward for Jerusalem?

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

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

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

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

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Middle East Tense as Israel Now Hits Hezbollah Hard appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

Voter psychology is changing

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

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

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

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

The Electoral College might be a hindrance for Harris

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

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

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

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

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

Harris must reshape voter perception of the Democratic party

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: New Twists and Turns in Astonishing US Presidential Election appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

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

Who did Israel assassinate, and why? 

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

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

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

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

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

Israel’s growing internal tensions

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

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

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

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

[Ting Cui wrote the first draft of this piece] 

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Warm Middle East Is Now Getting Boiling Hot appeared first on Fair Observer.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Russia Has Kicked Off a New Charm Offensive appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

An attempt to break the far-right fever

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

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

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

Why is this happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Volatile Europe Catches New Election Fever appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

Israel and Hezbollah have a long history of conflict 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Hezbollah and Israel Tensions Continue to Worsen appeared first on Fair Observer.

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.

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.

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

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

Close up of the candidates: All around depressing

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

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

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

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

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

The shifting status quo

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Rishi Sunak Takes Post-Brexit UK to the Polls appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

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

More repression in store ahead

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

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

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

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

An Iran more hostile to the West

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

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

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

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

What governmental changes lie in Iran’s future?

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Iran’s President Falls Out of the Sky appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

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

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

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

Taiwan’s new president is weaker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Taiwan-China Tensions Increase as New Taiwanese President Takes Charge appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

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

Who are the key players in the Indian elections?

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

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

Related Reading

Why Women Support Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

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

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

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

What are their records and what lies ahead?

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

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

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

Related Reading

India Enters the Era of Sanatan Socialism

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

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

Related Reading

Narendra Modi Is the New Indira Gandhi, Only Much Worse

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Indian Elections — Mammoth and Unparalleled appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US aid bolsters Europe and deters China but Russia remains ascendant

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

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

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

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

Related Reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: US Congress Gives Ukraine Sizable, if Not Timely, Aid appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

Regional politics are on a dangerous precipice

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

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

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

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

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

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

Things could very easily get a lot worse

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

Related Reading

Do You Think the Startling Columbia Protests Were Peaceful?

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

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

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Conflict in the Middle East Is Now Dangerous appeared first on Fair Observer.

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.

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.

Deflation is worse now than it was during China’s COVID slump. From 2020 to 2022, Chinese President Xi Jinping attempted to stop the spread of the virus by instituting extreme lockdown measures across the country, which became known as his infamous zero-COVID Policy. Predictably, this brought the Chinese economy to a standstill. Following nationwide protests in November 2022, Xi lifted the policy. Yet, a year later, consumer demand has not rebounded. China is still stuck in the doldrums. Beijing policymakers have set a growth target of 5%, the lowest in decades. Even then, Chinese bureaucrats, notorious for cooking the books, cannot meet this low target.

China is in a very risky situation. Systemic weaknesses make the world’s second-largest economy surprisingly brittle. Unlike Europe or even the US, supposedly socialist China has almost no safety net for retirees. And, after four decades of the one-child policy, older Chinese cannot fall back on their few children to support them, either. They have to rely on their personal savings in order to survive.

In Western economies, people put their retirement funds in a mix of stocks and bonds. These provide a diversified and (usually) reliable return. But China’s financial sector is not nearly as sophisticated. The country lacks a well-developed stock market for private investors to invest. So, 60-70% of household savings are tied up in real estate. And it is the real estate industry that is in the most trouble.

Property prices are plummeting. Developers are finding themselves with properties on their hands that no one will lease or buy. Chinese cities are full of apartment and office buildings with no occupants. Developers cannot make the money back on their investments and therefore cannot pay back their creditors. In 2021, China’s second-largest property developer Evergrande Group defaulted. In 2023, China’s largest developer Country Garden defaulted, too. Dozens of other firms are teetering on the brink of collapse. If the real estate industry crashes, China’s population of over 250 million people over 60 will see their savings vanish into thin air.

Banks are in trouble, too. As real estate firms default on the debt they owe, their creditors, i.e. banks, have to write off huge losses. Defaults by these firms could make the banks insolvent as well. If this contagion spreads throughout the Chinese banking system, the workshop of the world may descend into a recession of titanic proportions.

Xi is taking the ship down

How did China’s economy get so bad?

Zero-COVID took a huge bite. But other forces are afoot. The US is turning increasingly protectionist, unwilling to have its domestic industry compete with China’s low, low prices. As China undergoes deflation, those prices will only get lower and calls for protection stronger. Both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden hiked tariffs and sanctions on China.

Historically, protectionism has done wonders for the US. In the 19th century, the US used tariffs to protect its markets from cheap manufactured goods coming out of Britain’s Industrial Revolution. Instead of becoming a source of raw materials and a market for British goods, the US fostered its own industrial revolution that made it the most prosperous country on the planet. Now, the US is developing a domestic microprocessor industry and no longer wants to rely on imports.

Other countries, too, have cut down on imports from China. “Reshoring,” “nearshoring” and “friendshoring” are the words of the day. Democracies would rather buy from each other than rely on an authoritarian China that uses economic leverage against them. This means the money that used to pay Chinese labor is now going to Mexicans, Indians and Poles.

While overseas changes are a big factor, the fundamental causes of China’s slowdown are internal. For one thing, China is following a pattern that all growing economies go through. Thanks to the biggest and fastest industrialization in history, China made huge profits selling goods at prices that developed countries, with much higher wages and costs, couldn’t match. Now, China’s population is wealthier and demands higher wages. This means that China has trouble competing with other developing nations, such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. Both can underprice China. In transitioning to more profitable high-tech goods, China faces stiff competition from developed economies like the US, Germany and South Korea. China is now very firmly stuck in the “middle income trap” and there is no easy way out of it.

China is also facing other unique problems. Typically, a nation first becomes wealthy, and then its wealthier citizens have fewer children. But China is facing a demographic bust caused by its now-abandoned one-child policy. The Chinese have gotten old before they’ve gotten rich. With fewer young workers, China needs to squeeze more productivity out of each worker to keep growing. Meanwhile, they are increasingly burdened with supporting their elders. That is an impossible task.

A pragmatic administration could make the transition less painful. “Demography is destiny,” goes the adage there is likely no stopping China’s relative economic decline. However, this decline does not have to turn into a crash. Unfortunately, China is no longer ruled by a pragmatis like the legendary Deng Xiaoping but by an ideological Xi.

Like Mao Zedong, Communist China’s founder and dictator, Xi has tightened state control over all aspects of Chinese life. This includes the economy, reversing Deng’s measures. Xi’s father, Xi Zhongxun, was one of Mao’s confidants. Zhongxun later fell victim to Mao’s purges and was thrown in prison. Instead of souring on Mao, Xi seems to have doubled down on Maoism, striving to be even more faithful to this ideology than his father.

Every company has a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on its board as an “observer.” This has a chilling effect at every level. Entrepreneurs now have to keep their heads down, fearing retaliation if they question the party line. They risk getting their stocks delisted from exchanges and even disappear. The Alibaba CEO Jack Ma vanished for a bit after criticizing the CCP. Such a climate of fear hamstrings business leaders’ ability to give feedback to the government and warn them of potential problems.

Poor communication and misallocation of resources now characterize the Chinese economy. In a market economy like the US, nine million financial service employees are at work ensuring that capital is allocated to productive projects and not spent on wasteful ones. But China has an undeveloped financial sector. Instead of banks, investment firms and entrepreneurs decide where to invest. Behind the scenes, party capos in each province call the shots. They’re incentivized to boost numbers artificially to meet the central government’s growth targets. This creates system-wide misallocations of capital. Wanting to impress the bosses in Beijing, regional governors have massively over-invested in real estate, building shiny new cities with no one to work in them.

On top of this, the Chinese government has discouraged domestic consumption. With falling foreign demand, China could have turned to domestic demand to drive growth. But instead, it has instead encouraged households to save. Xi has resisted calls for boosting domestic consumption, perhaps for ideological reasons. He may simply see consumption as decadent and capitalist. Xi could still correct his course but he seems disinclined to do so.

In this way, Xi resembles the celebrated English writer Samuel Johnson. This towering literary genius composed the first English dictionary and had a great appetite for life. As he lay dying in 1784, he wanted bloodletting treatment, which was then prevailing medical wisdom. His doctors prudently refused. But Johnson snatched a knife from them, stabbing himself as he cried, “I want life, I want life.” Like the great Englishman, Xi is trying to save the economy even as he stabs it incessantly.

China’s economic problems are deep but not insurmountable. Here, the great man theory of history becomes relevant. If someone like Deng had won the struggle for power in the 2010s, things could have been very different. Instead, China has got another Mao at the helm and is heading over a cliff.

What does this mean for the rest of us?

If China goes down, it’ll take a lot of other economies along with it. Too many economies import from the Middle Kingdom and too many export to it. Even without a crash, China’s current deflation will cause damage. It is bad news for Germany and France who will suffer from lower Chinese demand.

Unlike the UK, which makes a lot of money through financial services, Germany is a manufacturing-based economy. The country’s second-largest company is Siemens, which makes machines for manufacturers. As the workshop of the world, China buys a lot of these machines. Fair Observer’s Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh learned this first-hand when he first visited China in 2005. He found Chinese hotels to be full of Germans selling their wares to factory owners.

In a nutshell, Germany is dependent on the Chinese market. When China sneezes, Germany catches a cold.It is for this reason German Chancellor Olaf Scholz flew all the way to Beijing and returned without even spending the night thanks to Xi’s ridiculously rigid zero-COVID policy. This trip made plain what everyone knew: German prosperity is highly dependent on Chinese demand.

Related Reading

Is the German Economy Now Destined to Decline?

The French depend on China too. They sell luxury goods to China’s growing bourgeoisie. Young Chinese have embraced both Christianity and Christian Dior with equal fervor. With the Chinese feeling less wealthy, Christian Dior will not be able to sell them as many perfumes and bags as before. Luxury goods are the first consumption item to be axed in a recession.

Unlike Europe, the US relies less on exports and makes goods mostly for domestic demand. Still some companies will feel the pinch. A slowing Chinese economy means Boeing will sell fewer planes in China.

To respond to falling demand, China might respond with another stimulus. This time, it may not work as well. A slowdown might lead to China dumping even more goods on the global market at rock-bottom prices. Don’t be surprised to see other nations raise anti-dumping duties in response.

The slowdown is causing a cash crunch for China. Now, Beijing will curb spending on its Belt and Road Initiative and other ambitious projects from Latin America to Africa to Asia. These economies will feel the pain as Chinese capital dries up even as exports to China go down as well.

For now, China is continuing its astounding development into a great power despite all of its problems. But it is now more brittle both as an economy and as a political system. The CCP has neither democratic nor ideological legitimacy. The CCP’s claim to legitimacy rests on its ability to deliver growth. With the economy slowing, the Xi-led CCP increasingly relies on nationalism to command blind obedience. This has made China aggressive on its borders and the adjoining seas. Beijing has exacerbated historical grudges with Taiwan, Japan, India and the nations of Southeast Asia. The CCP has also stepped up military parades, a common tactic of fascists and communists. Only the North Koreans rival the Chinese in their love of tank-filled parades and goose-stepping soldiers.

So, China will be both defensive and aggressive at the same time for the foreseeable future. The risk of conflict is now greater everywhere. All it takes is one radicalized young officer with an itchy trigger finger to  start a war in the Himalayas. After all, the Chinese, remember that Indian troops under Lord Elgin’s command destroyed the Old Summer Palace in Beijing.

Nationalism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. As it rears its ugly head in East Asia, there is little in the way of good news to end this piece. The future looks bleak.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: China’s Worsening Deflation Now Spells Big Trouble appeared first on Fair Observer.

What most observers seem to miss is that this is an assault on one of the most vital shipping lanes on the planet. For decades, the US has kept international sea lanes open as part of its global “rules-based order.” Now, that order is under attack.

What’s going on in the Red Sea?

Yemen is in shambles. In 2014, the Houthis took control of the capital city, Sanaa, and overthrew President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, a Sunni. The Houthis failed to take over the country’s vast east and densely populated south. In 2015, Saudi Arabia intervened against the Houthis in support of Yemen’s internationally recognized government. The ferocious Saudi bombing campaign killed thousands. Yet the Houthis have held on, and eight years later they are still standing.

Iran backed the Houthis, partly to prevent an allied Shia group falling to Sunni Saudi Arabia. Yet the Iranian–Saudi proxy conflict in Yemen is not just a religious struggle. Iran has Shia rivals (like Azerbaijan) and Sunni allies (notably, Hamas). What matters most to Iran is gathering fellow enemies of the American global order and of Iran’s archnemesis, Israel.

Related Reading

How Azerbaijan Found Victory, and Armenia Defeat, in Nagorno-Karabakh

In the Houthis, Iran has a strategically placed ally. The Houthis are highly motivated and armed to the teeth with missiles and drones. Furthermore, their location in southwest Arabia puts them within spitting distance of the Bab-el-Mandeb. This 16-mile-wide chokepoint is the only way to get from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. A quarter of the world’s trade passes through this route. Even though Egypt is stable and the Suez Canal is safe and operational, it does not matter. There is no use passing through Suez unless one can get through the Bab-el-Mandeb on the other side.

Now that the Red Sea route has become too dangerous, at least 121 container ships have decided to take the long way between Europe and Asia. This involves traveling all the way around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, adding weeks of extra travel time, raising insurance premiums, fuel costs and payroll expenses.

Cutting off the Red Sea is like putting the global economy into cardiac arrest. It is the coronary artery through which high-tech goods from Europe, oil from the Middle East and Southeast Asia and manufactured goods from India and China pass. Without the Red Sea route open for business, everything becomes more expensive.

The coming multipolar world

But why all the hassle? 

Surely the Houthis are not just interested in making people pay more at the pump. The Houthis claim they are trying to cut off Israeli shipping and put pressure on the Jewish state to stop the fighting in Gaza. They argue that they are engaged in a humanitarian effort. This kind of message plays well with the Arab street but there is more going on.

In truth, the Houthis are not acting alone. Iran-backed militant groups across the Middle East have been stepping up attacks on Israel and the US. Militants in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq have launched over 100 missile strikes at US troops across the region. This is a coordinated attempt to push the American superpower out of the region. Iran is trying to make things complicated and painful for the US. Iran wants the US to either get mired in another insoluble scenario like Iraq or accelerate American departure from the Middle East.

Even further, Tehran is clearly seeking to refocus attention on the Palestinian plight in order to keep Iran strategically influential and relevant. The general trend of the last years, from the Abraham Accords to recent Saudi–Israeli normalization talks, has been Arab–Israeli rapprochement. Rapprochement comes at the cost of Palestine and sidelines Iran. By setting itself up as the champion of Palestine, Iran is making a bid for hegemony in the Muslim world.

Iran has been playing its position well. Indeed, Tehran seems to be doing as well without the late General Qasem Solemaini. In 2020, the US killed Soleimani via air strike. The dashing leader of Iran’s Quds Force was the brains behind many of Iran’s military and influence operations. Yet even without its hero, Iranians know what they are doing. They are sophisticated practitioners of realpolitik, and no one should ever underestimate what they are capable of achieving. 

Iran stole the spotlight from the US last year by signing a China-backed rapprochement deal with Saudi Arabia. Yet its rivalry with its Sunni Arab neighbor remains. Currently, Iran is pulling on all levers to wrest influence away from Saudi Arabia. The Iranian strategy seems to be working. The October 7 attack on Israel by Iranian ally Hamas dashed hopes of a Saudi–Israeli deal. And now Iran has set itself up as the sword of Islam, supporting every militant group that is opposing the Zionists and their Crusader allies.

Related Reading

Saudi Arabia And Israel Drive A Hard Bargain For Normalization

But let us zoom out even farther. Iran is not the only power seeking to carve out its sphere of influence safe from American power. Greater powers, namely Russia and China, are doing the same. This is a shift in international relations as profound as the end of the Cold War — only, unlike the end of the Cold War, we understand much less what the world will look like at the end of it.

China, Russia and Iran seek to directly overthrow, challenge and replace the American system. The US calls it an assault on the normative, rules-based order. The revisionist powers call it an assault on the imperialist, American order. Critics have a point. The normative system is, after all, the American one. The US created the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The US Navy patrols the world’s oceans and enforces the “law of the sea.” The United Nations is in New York, countless international organizations are in Washington, and the CIA keeps tabs on foreign diplomats operating on US soil.

However, critics forget one vital point. The normative system works, but it only works so long as smaller powers agree that they are better off in this system than in any other one. By and large, the US has striven to keep this true. The US has the ability to be just as ruthless as any other nation when it comes to what Washington sees as vital national interest. However, the US almost always begrudgingly accepts international rules even when they are against its not-so-vital national interests. The one glaring exception was the US Treasury’s behavior during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Then, it openly pursued narrowly nationalistic goals, allowing the Asian economies to crash in order to keep the US economy safe. Note that, even at the time, key American policymakers like Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz fought American policy.

Despite benign aspects of the normative order, the revisionist powers are not happy. They foresee a world in which human rights are an internal affair, borders are a regional affair and the US does not get involved to “solve” other people’s problems. They champion pluralism against the unitarianism of America’s ideals. What that would look like in practice, no one can say.

India must be recognized as a great power

As China, Russia and Iran assert themselves, something else has gone almost unnoticed: the rise of India. Such has been the rapidity of the country’s rise that even Indian media have yet to fully grasp how their country is now a great power in its own right.

Related Reading

India Is Growing Confident in Its New Role as a Powerful Nation

Indians, of course, are better aware than anyone that their economic, military and political might is growing. The world’s largest democracy is a confident and young nation. Naturally, India’s geopolitical aspirations are rising in concert with its power. Yet there is a disconnect between this self-image and India’s foreign policy in practice. In many ways, India still behaves more like the ex-colony it was than the power it has become.

The current Red Sea crisis has made this all the more visible. No one is more affected than India by a closing of the Suez route. After all, the British constructed the Suez in order to ferry troops and goods to India, the crown jewel of the British Empire. To this day, a large proportion of Indian trade goes through the Suez Canal.

Yet, India seems unwilling to commit itself to Western efforts to enforce the law of the sea. The US has created an international coalition of 12 nations to patrol the Red Sea route. The US can’t control the area on its own. It has a mere six ships patrolling the Red Sea, which comprises 174,000 square miles (450,000 square kilometers) of open water. That’s a lot of space for Houthi boats to hide in. To be successful, the US will need regional helpers. Yet India (and Saudi Arabia) are conspicuously absent.

India’s response is in line with its historic practice. India seeks to benefit from the international free trade system while decrying the American hegemon’s attempts to enforce this system. Some might say Indians like sausage but hate to see how it’s made. Given India’s history, it was reasonable for the country to do so. After independence in 1947, India has been an anti-colonial power, a historic friend of the Soviet Union, and it never wanted to be part of any cartel to control the world. But things have changed since the Cold War.

Now, India’s chief strategic threat is China. Russia is not the powerful friend it used to be, and India is at odds with Iran over Israel. India’s interests all point towards working more closely with the West. While US-Indian interests have slowly converged, India’s practices continue to lag behind its interests.

Yet India has just given a hint that things may change. On December 23, a drone (the Pentagon claims it was Iranian while India suspects Pakistan) attacked a tanker carrying oil from Saudi Arabia to the port of Mangaluru. The incident happened just 200 miles (360 kilometers) off the coast of Gujarat, the home state of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In response, India has deployed three destroyers. The Indian deployment is not to the Red Sea but to the Arabian Sea, which lies to the west of the country. Still, this is a big development. India may be beginning to participate in US-led policing of the shipping route, even if it does not wish to do so formally.

China, Russia and Iran are embracing sphere-of-influence politics. Now, India must make a choice. Will it try to stay the course and keep out of the fray, or will it ally itself with the US and push back against revisionist powers? Over the past two decades, India has been integrating economically and politically with the West. Is it time to deepen this integration?

What is certain is that we are living at a time of grave risk. If the Houthis continue to shape the course of events, their actions will have consequences far beyond the Middle East. International trade could be under threat by nationalist powers from the Black Sea to the South China Sea.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Houthis Cause Chaos in the Red Sea appeared first on Fair Observer.

Now, 23.6% might not sound like a lot if you are an American. In a two-party system like that of the US, the winning candidate generally takes more than 50% of the vote. On the other hand, the Netherlands has a multiparty system. No less than 15 different parties won seats in the Dutch parliament this year. So, for the PVV to wrest nearly one-quarter of the seats is a big deal.

For most political analysts, Wilders’s victory came as a huge surprise. It represents a sudden turn of Dutch politics to the hard right. Although his victory is surprising, Wilders is no newcomer to politics. The 60-year-old is the longest-serving member of the Dutch parliament. He first got elected in 1998 as a member of the center-right Liberals. Wilders quit that party in 2004 over what he considered Liberals’ softness towards Islam and founded the PVV in 2006.

Wilders is anti-immigration and anti-Muslim. But his profile is not that of a stereotypical, narrow-minded bigot. Wilders is from Venlo, a small city in the conservative, mostly Catholic province of Limburg. He was raised a Catholic himself, making him a religious minority in the historically Protestant Netherlands. Wilders has Indonesian ancestry on his mother’s side. He spent two years on a kibbutz, a collective farm, in Israel. And he married a Hungarian immigrant. So you could hardly say that Wilders has no appreciation for multiculturalism.

But Wilders has taken a strong tack against the Dutch Muslim community. In his view, Muslims have failed to assimilate into Dutch society. For example, 68.76% of Dutch Turks voted for the Islamist Turkish presidential candidate Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — a far higher percentage than among Turks in Turkey. Such voting gives credence to Wilders’s argument that Dutch Muslims are not absorbing liberal European values.

In fact, Dutch voters are worried about Muslim ghettos as breeding grounds for crime and extremism. The 2002 assassination of anti-Muslim politician Pim Fortuyn and the 2004 assassination of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch Moroccan youth are still fresh in their memories. So, they have turned to Wilders.

Demographic shifts lead to tensions across the West

The fears and frustrations that Dutch voters are experiencing are real. They are shared by voters across Western Europe and North America. Demographic shifts are bringing clashes of fundamental values between immigrants and natives. But while the right is perceiving a real problem, the solution that it presents is a horrible one. Singling out an ethnic group as the problem may be a prelude to violence. A mixture of legitimate concern and populist racism is what is driving the right today.

A pattern common to all human societies is now playing out in Europe. Research in sociology tells us that whenever about 10% of the population becomes “other,” there is a hostile reaction. No matter how tolerant a society, things change when it begins to feel threatened. Before the US Civil War, northerners thought of themselves as tolerant, abolitionist Republicans. After the war, black freedmen started to fill the North, and racism flared up. The nativist Know-Nothings reacted to black and Irish newcomers as if they represented the collapse of civilization.

Now, France and Germany have even more immigrants than the US does. The pattern is playing out across Europe. Declining birth rates create a shrinking economy. This creates a demand for immigrant labor. These immigrants bring their own religion and values. They also compete with natives for resources and jobs within the shrinking economy. Economic pressures exacerbate cultural ones, and sooner or later violence breaks out.

A question of religion is a question about the very identity or existence of a society. Two men might duel over a woman, but entire societies go to war over religion. Both France and Germany have a long history of religious civil wars and so does the rest of Europe.

European nations may not be Christian as they once were. But they are strongly attached to basic values like secularism, liberalism and constitutionalism. Now, Muslims live across Europe. Their white neighbors have doubts whether Muslim loyalties lie with the constitutional order or sharia law. Conversely, Muslim Europeans deeply resent having their loyalties questioned. Tensions continue to build.

Javier Milei claims victory in Argentina

The far right is on the rise in other parts of the world. Religion is not always the cause though. In Argentina, economic collapse has fueled the rise of the far right.

About 100 years ago, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. Now, it is a basket case. The International Monetary Fund has lent it $44 billion, a third of the fund’s entire debt portfolio. This dwarfs the aid it lent to Pakistan. Argentina’s annual inflation is a heart-stopping 185%. Public corruption is endemic, employment low and poverty high.

Desperate for a change, Argentineans have elected the outsider libertarian candidate Javier Milei. A devotee of Milton Friedman, Milei is rabidly anti-Keynesian. He wants to dismantle many government ministries and make the US dollar Argentina’s official currency.

But it’s not just his economic policies that are oddball. Milei enjoys cosplay, he’s a self-proclaimed tantric sex expert, and he has four cloned mastiffs of his old dead one. He admits to consulting his lovely dogs when he needs to make major decisions. In a Catholic country, Milei has flirted with conversion to Judaism, and he has railed against Pope Francis. Note that the pope is the first Argentine to occupy this holy position and is popular in the country. Milei has called Francis a “communist turd” and a “piece of shit.” In brief, Milei seems nuts.

Once the home of the socialist Eva Perón — herself quite a celebrity populist — Argentina has now swung all the way in the opposite direction.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: The Far Right Soars in the Netherlands and Argentina appeared first on Fair Observer.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas crossed the Gaza–Israel border and brutally killed 1,200 people. Israel has responded with an assault on Gaza, leveling many buildings and killing 16,000 people so far. The fighting has displaced the great majority of Gaza’s 2.3 million population.

The war has been intensely polarizing, sparking a war of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli narratives and demonstrations in capitals across the globe.

Fair Observer’s Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh has just returned from London. There, he saw several demonstrations, with tens of thousands marching in favor of a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli activists are also fighting a poster war in this historic city, tearing down one another’s leaflets even in posh neighborhoods like Hampstead. Within the center-left Labour Party, party leader Sir Keir Starmer experienced a full-scale revolt from pro-Palestinian members of parliament because of his refusal to call for a ceasefire.

From Amsterdam to Berlin, Stockholm, Rome and Madrid, this divide runs deep. Most Muslim immigrants are pro-Palestine while many rightwing Europeans are pro-Israel and anti-Muslim. In fact, Dutch voters gave anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders’s party the most seats in the November 22 elections.

Tensions are sky-high in the US, too. On November 25, a man shot three Palestinian youths in Vermont, paralyzing one of them. There have been shouting matches on Ivy League campuses. A Harvard professor even told Singh that the October 7 “needed” to happen because of the Israeli blockade.

Why is this war so polarizing? It’s the demographics

Israel has long since lost the perception war both in the West and in the Middle East. Sympathy, naturally, goes to the weak. The world can see that Israel has a powerful army and enjoys economic prosperity. Meanwhile, Gaza is tiny, intensely overcrowded and poor.

Of course, Arab and Muslim nations naturally sympathize with their ethnic and religious brethren in Gaza. However, Western societies now have much larger Arab and Muslim populations too. Gone are the days when Jews far outnumbered Muslims, for example, in the United States. So these nations no longer automatically look at Palestine from a Jewish perspective. They now have a more fragmented perspective. So, there are many more Americans who are ready to challenge Israel.

Immigration has brought in cultural and civilizational divides that were once foreign to the West. In the UK, Muslims and Hindus line up against each other politically. Muslims largely vote for Labour and Hindus vote for the Tories.

People identify more viscerally with others who look like them, speak their mother tongue or share their religion. Indeed, religion can often be the most powerful motivator of all. The founder of modern psychology, Sigmund Freud, thought that the sex drive was the basic motivator of human behavior, but history teaches otherwise. Nearly every nation, especially in Europe, has been riven by religious war, sometimes for hundreds of years. Religion captures the values and identities that human beings hold most dear, and people are willing to fight, die and indeed kill for that.

So, it is easy to understand how feelings over the war in Gaza would have been so high, even if Hamas’s October 7 attack were not so brutal or Israel’s response so destructive.

Divides between the old and young

In addition to the religious divide, there is also a generational one. In the West, young people increasingly perceive Israel as an apartheid state. Youth activists on college campuses and elsewhere have been vocal in supporting Palestinian statehood.

This is a view not shared by their parents. This generation is largely Baby Boomers, who were born and raised in the aftermath of World War II. The Holocaust is a much fresher memory for Baby Boomers. They remember how 6 million of Europe’s Jews were slaughtered and how many of Jewish survivors subsequently fled to Israel. So, they feel reflexive sympathy for the Jewish state. Likewise, anti-Jewish rhetoric from Hamas strongly reminds them of the Nazis.

On the other hand, young people are less likely to look at the situation from a postwar perspective. Contemporary race relations, consciousness of the oppression of minorities and the legacy of colonialism shape the lens through which they view Palestine. So, when they look at Palestine, they see an oppressed, brown minority being hemmed in by a rich, ethnically white European nation. In their eyes, the Jewish state is much stronger than the Palestinians and is gradually annexing more and more Palestinian lands. This is clearly the behavior of a colonizer.

Generational shifts cut both ways though. Ironically, colonial awareness has gone down in India at the same time that it has gone up in the West. In the 20th century, India was a young nation and an ex-colony. It had close ties with the Soviet Union and followed a socialist policy at home. Indians saw the US, UK and Israel as colonial oppressors, and sympathized with Palestine as a fellow colony. 

Today, although India is still officially a socialist country, the memory of colonialism has faded for many young people. Now, India is a swiftly developing and confident nation. Indians admire and want to emulate Israel, which has constructed a vibrant economy with technological prowess and entrepreneurial grit.

The Indian National Congress party represents the older, post-colonial mindset. Congress was once the dominant party of India. Currently, it is the opposition. Congress will not even condemn Hamas because it is afraid of losing the Muslim vote. Like the West, India is also deeply divided over Palestine.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Israel-Hamas War Divides Societies in the West appeared first on Fair Observer.

Now, suddenly, Chinese President Xi Jinping has gone from Rambo to Romeo. He visited San Francisco, California, on November 14 for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. His tone in California was all about cooperation, not rivalry.

In reality, this shift began over a year ago. For the last 18 months, both China and the US have been making abortive attempts to lower the temperature of their relationship. Each attempt failed largely due to domestic circumstances in both countries. In February 2023, a Chinese intelligence-gathering balloon flew over the US. Xi had not been aware of the operation, but the US detected the balloon and eventually shot it down. Then, the US accused China of spying, forcing China to respond defensively and make counter-accusations. So, Xi could not take a friendly tone for another few months. Now, the time for demonstrating friendship has come.

A weakening China tries to make friends

After years of belligerence, why is China trying to lower tensions with the West? China’s economic prowess, the basis of its political and military power, is ebbing.

For a long time, China was the fastest-rising large economy in the world, with eye-popping growth rates of 8% per year. This was largely the result of a large, mostly agrarian nation modernizing its economy with (often stolen) foreign technology. Now, China is a world leader in many cutting-edge technologies. . China can no longer hoist itself up with others’ help, and it will not see the same growth that it saw in the past.

The disastrous zero-covid policy, trade wars with the West, and the policies of reshoring, nearshoring and friendshoring have taken their toll on China’s economy. Exports are down, and so is employment. Meanwhile, China’s unemployed youth are taking to the temples for solace or help.

More fundamentally, China’s population is shrinking. Decades of the one-child policy have created an economy of only children burdened with taking care of the older generation. Unlike people in the West, elderly Chinese cannot look to a social safety net for help. China has no social security programs like Europe or the US.

So, older people must rely on their savings. Unlike in the West, where retirement funds are typically invested in a robust mix of stocks and bonds, the Chinese financial industry is not as developed. Most household savings are invested in real estate. But the real estate sector is deeply unhealthy. It has long been managed by corrupt provincial and military officials who allowed unwise investments. China’s cities are dotted with hastily-built, shoddy apartment buildings that cannot find tenants. Real estate developers put themselves into debt to construct these edifices and find they cannot recoup their investment. So, the Chinese real estate industry may well be on the verge of collapse. If it goes down, it will take the retirement savings of hundreds of millions of people with it.

China knows that if it is going to weather this collapse, it will not be able to do so alone. It must diversify its economy and build interdependence with foreign partners, including the US, rather than relying on domestic growth driven by questionable real estate development.

What did Xi say in San Francisco?

In San Francisco, nothing particularly groundbreaking was announced. Much of what typically gets said at summits like these is boilerplate, and most of the policy announcements had been telegraphed in advance. But China launched a major charm offensive.

The most notable line in Xi’s November 15 speech was this: “The number one question for us is, are we adversaries or partners?” China, Xi said, “is ready to be a partner and friend of the United States.” Xi’s question is, to all appearances, an honest one.

The sentiment does not seem to be shared in Washington. If you go to the White House website, you will see language of “strategic competition.” The White House insists that it will always stand up for its values and partners against Chinese aggression. Still, the US does emphasize the importance of managing competition responsibly and making sure that it does not spiral out of control.

After the conference, US President Joe Biden made plenty of headlines by labeling Xi as a “dictator.” Instead of reacting with anger and counter-accusations, however, Chinese officials attending the dinner were quick to dismiss the comment, placing blame on the media for cornering Biden with a “gotcha” question. It is clear that they want the overall tone of the summit to be cooperation, not competition. 

Moving on to specifics, Xi courted the business community and tried to make it more attractive for multinationals to keep doing business in China. Xi promised that China would relax restrictions on foreign investment and more rigorously protect investors’ rights within the country — including intellectual property. This is a new tune, not what the Chinese were singing even a few months ago. Historically, China has sought to gain an advantage over Western competitors by ignoring patents and copyrights.

China and the United States also discussed cooperation on areas of mutual concern. China promised to help prevent the trafficking of fentanyl into the US, even making a few arrests in the lead-up to the summit. China and the US resumed military-to-military ties, increasing communication in order to avoid unwanted escalation following incidents. They also discussed taking steps to mitigate the risks posed by climate change and the military use of AI.

It’s important to note that when China and the Us make statements like these, their intended audiences are not primarily each other but the rest of the world that is watching. China, evidently, wants to appear more trustworthy and less threatening, a better business partner. Meanwhile, the US wants to emphasize that it is a trustworthy security partner. So, China is talking friendship, and the US is not.

Chinese interests have not essentially changed. Its strategic interest in controlling its barrier seas and Taiwan has not gone away. So, it is talking about friendship and multilateralism now, but we must remember that China has always been willing to make bilateral deals — as long as they benefit China.

What the US needs and continues to enforce, on the other hand, is rules-based free trade on the seas. Unfortunately, in this department it is suffering from a self-dealt injury. Donald Trump scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would have functioned as the cardinal strategic response to China’s rise. Now, there is no there is no political will in Washington for a new free trade agreement. Even Democrats now oppose such moves, tying Biden’s hands. So, the US has undermined the credibility of its own rules-based trade order, which incentivizes other nations to choose a more reliable partner than the schizophrenic US.

All that said, although the media seem to think that nothing much happened in San Francisco, they are wrong. What China and the US did was heal much of the damage done in the last few years of worsening relations. They reestablished lapsed cooperation agreements. The summit represents the culmination of the US’s characteristic foreign policy — cooperation where cooperation is possible and competition where competition is necessary — which had fallen by the wayside in the Trump and Biden years.

For now, China seems to need the US somewhat more than the US needs China. The US is in a lot of debt, but the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, so as long as it manages inflation rationally the Federal Reserve will be able to manage this debt just fine. And the dollar’s status as reserve currency is not about to change any time soon.

Still, the US is not immune to economic damage, even if it does not face the same existential economic threats that China does. If a full trade war were to spiral out, a lot of campaign donors, as well as the average voter, would feel the pinch. So, members of Congress are on the hook to some degree to get along with China. This means that we are more likely to than not to keep seeing cooperation between the world’s two economic powerhouses.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Emperor Xi’s New Charm Offensive in San Francisco appeared first on Fair Observer.

[Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and retired CIA officer Glenn Carle commented on Qin’s fall from grace in an earlier FO° Exclusive.]

Li and Qin were also removed from their positions on the State Council. Both men have fallen victim to a broader purge that has included senior generals Li Yuchao and Xu Zhongbo as well as Major General Cheng Dongfang. In Xi’s court, no one is safe.

Xi appears unable to identify and promote trustworthy talent in an orderly way. He elevates favorites to top positions and then fires them summarily. Few, if any, really know the real reason why. What is going on?

Zhongnanhai has reverted to the days of its past. This compound is where leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the State Council reside. Appositely, Zhongnanhai is a former imperial garden and lies next to the Forbidden Palace in Beijing. Yet again, it has become a shadowy medieval court where courtiers fall from favor overnight.

This concentration of power and arbitrary imperial rule portends a darker era for China. The CCP-run Middle Kingdom is no longer the institutional, collective dictatorship that Xi inherited from his predecessors. He has transformed it into a one-man dictatorship and, therefore, cannot rely on institutions to bring good people to the top. Loyalty, not professionalism, is how one rises through the ranks. As the sackings of two favorites demonstrate, even loyalty is not enough.

Basically, the Chinese state is no longer able to cultivate and promote top talent, a process essential for any organization’s success. Xi only promotes those he can trust. However, once they are in power, he cannot trust them to do their jobs.

Xi’s reliance on personal favorites has exposed his administration to caprice. China is no longer ruled smoothly as in the days of Deng Xiaoping and his successors. It has gone back to the days of Mao Zedong. There is no process that slows or moderates Xi’s whims. Instead, everything runs or stops and everyone rises and falls at his pleasure. 

In a system where institutions have no legitimacy, the incentive is to be a yes-man. No one can dare tell the emperor that he is naked. Disasters inevitably follow. Then, ministers lose their heads.

It is clear that China has entered another period of malaise. Deng’s era of pragmatism and professionalism has been replaced by a Mao-style personality cult. In our era, political dysfunction is not only a hallmark of democracies but also autocracies. Even China, which has been a poster child for autocratic rule with its spectacular growth rates, extraordinary infrastructure and spectacular reduction in poverty, is falling apart.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Emperor Xi Jinping Now Gets Rid of Another Minister appeared first on Fair Observer.

Republicans, who control the majority of the seats in the House of Representatives, have shown themselves unable to elect a Speaker of the House in an orderly fashion. Their ability to swat down nominees is far greater than their ability to pick one. After House Republicans ousted sitting Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the party caucus raised up Tom Emmer to take his place, only to drop him the next day. Now they have settled upon Mike Johnson, a rookie member who until his nomination was a political non-entity. This is no way to run a country.

As per Carle, the Republicans’ lack of ability to govern with seriousness raises deep concerns about the party. Since at least 2016, we have watched the grand old party (GOP), as it is called, largely jettison its commitment to legality and even to democracy. President Donald Trump dismissed the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, in which he was ousted, and numerous party members, including Johnson, scrambled to repeat his claims. What we have is a potent combination of distrust in institutions together with exaltation of both “the people” and a charismatic leader. This pattern does not merely resemble, but is, fascism.

Make no mistake: Republicans aren’t just undergoing some ordinary political shenanigans. Their inability to select a speaker is a symptom of their fascistic tendency to demonize processes and institutions. Johnson was selected for loyalty to the party, not tenure, experience, political credibility or personal integrity.

Trouble ahead for the not-so-united United States

We are now less than a month away from a government shutdown. This occurs when Congress (both the Senate and the House of Representatives), is unable to authorize spending to fund the US government’s activities. If the House cannot get its act together, this will occur. A significant proportion of the federal government’s four million employees will be furloughed and unable to provide services.

Further, a deadlocked Congress will not be able to authorize support to Ukraine or to Israel. If Congress is not effective, America cannot effectively discharge its role as the hegemonic power that guarantees a stable international system. And no one wants to live in a chaotic world. If the international system cannot look to the US, it will look for another guarantor, like China.

Historically, Americans have been united not by common ethnic or religious identity but by loyalty to a certain set of values and institutions, which are enshrined in the US constitution. Now, that common allegiance is crumbling, and with it, Americans’ ability to work together, find a common purpose and compromise on party interests in order to make decisions concerning necessities.

A political community cannot survive without a common narrative that tells people what their goals are and why they should work together. If America is losing its constitutional and democratic narrative, what will replace it? For Republicans, the replacement seems to be populism. We no longer trust decisions arrived at by rational consensus and compromise forged within institutions. Instead, Republican policy is increasingly based on values, which range from noble ideals to bigoted prejudices to outright conspiracy theories.

Republicans are resorting to populism because voters are lashing out. They feel disenfranchised. It is true that institutions have degraded. Congressmen and Senators spend most of their time raising money. They seem to be more willing to listen to lobbyists and campaign donors than to ordinary Americans and their own constituents. So the government has become detached from the people. Also, the branches of government have become detached from each other. Political dysfunction reigns. The result is that no one feels that they can trust the government or that they have any moral reason to support it.

If American institutions are unable to build consensus, the same is true for American culture. Americans can no longer agree on what is their mission in the world or even on who Americans are as the debates on immigration demonstrate. Technology is partly to blame: These days, everyone feels they have the right to play the expert on Twitter, TikTok or Truth Social with an opinion on everything from public health to nuclear policy. Americans have always been individualistic, but the current brand of hyper-individualistic discourse is dissolving whatever consensus Americans have on anything and, thus, the American ability to act effectively in the world.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: New Nonstop Drama in the US Congres appeared first on Fair Observer.

About 1,500 Hamas militants flooded through the fenced and carefully guarded Gaza–Israel border. Once within Israel, these terrorists attacked civilians with extreme ferocity. Militants dragged young people away from the music festival to become hostages. Over a wide area in South Israel, they murdered, raped and mutilated their victims, even going to far as to behead infants.

The brutality of the attacks was not only an expression of rage, but also a political statement. Terrorists captured the violence on film to broadcast to Gazans and to the entire Islamic world a symbolic victory over the hated Jew, hoping to galvanize support against Israel and embarrass Arab governments that have been seeking a friendlier relationship with the Jewish state.

While the ground attack was going on, Hamas rocket attacks held the whole nation in terror. Israel, although much larger than minuscule Gaza, is not very large either as countries go. Given Gaza’s location on Israel’s southwestern flank, all Israeli territory is within the range of Hamas missiles. So, Hamas is able to threaten all of Israel despite its tiny territory. Air raid sirens went off across the country as citizens scrambled for safety in bomb shelters.

Israel could not let the atrocities and rocket attacks stand without an aggressive response. Outraged politicians declared their goal to be the total destruction of Hamas’s ability to rule and to wage war. Israel has mobilized a massive response, yet — in comparison to its expressions of anger — the attack seems restrained. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have mostly carried out an artillery war, and a large-scale ground incursion has not come.

Even still, the counterattack has been bloody. The assault has killed over 5,000 Palestinians at the time of filming. We do not know how many of those were members of Hamas, but with only 30,000 fighters out of a population of 2.3 million civilians, the proportion of civilian casualties is likely to be quite high.

Israel’s declared goal is to destroy Hamas by capturing or killing its leadership and destroying its infrastructure, from buildings to tunnels. Many Hamas facilities, however, are located within Palestinian civilian facilities, like schools or hospitals. Hamas has consciously made it impossible for Israel to strike them without committing war crimes.

So how did we get here?

How did Israel come to have a hostile terrorist force controlling two million people right on its border?

Israel has a complicated relationship with Gaza. It captured this territory in 1967 from Egypt. In 2005, Israel decided to unilaterally dismantle 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip. The government pulled out Israeli settlers and IDF troops from the Gaza Strip. In the 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, Hamas won in Gaza and continues to rule this territory since. Fatah runs the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. 

The Gaza Strip is 41 kilometers long and 10 kilometers wide. To its west is the Mediterranean Sea, to its north and east lies Israel and to its south is Egypt. Gaza’s 2.3 million depend on Israel for food, water, fuel, medical supplies and other items of daily existence.

Hamas emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood during the First Intifada, a violent uprising of Palestinians that began in December 1987 and lasted nearly six years. The Brotherhood itself has existed for a century. This Islamist political organization was founded in Egypt with the goals of opposing British, and later American, suzerainty in the Middle East.

Hams sees Israel as an imperialist occupation and a threat to the Arab world. Perhaps ironically, it borrowed from Western ideology itself, imbibing Russian antisemitism through reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax document which purports that Jews are plotting to take over the world and destroy civilization. Modern political Islam was also inspired and influenced by Nazis. In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world. Hamas is a part of this tradition and aims not to dismantle the Israeli state but to eradicate the Jewish people. There can be no compromise or peace that would satisfy this ideology.

Israel tacitly and, at times, actively allowed Hamas to rise to power within Palestine. It hoped that Hamas would provide a useful counterbalance to Fatah, the party which led the Palestine Liberation Organization. This divide-and-conquer strategy backfired in the worst way. Now, the creature has gotten way out of its creator’s control. Hamas came to power in Gaza after the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, in which it won a majority. Since then, it has governed Gaza, transforming it into an intransigent, antisemitic terrorist state.

For years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu followed a containment strategy towards Hamas. He hoped that, in spite of Hamas’s stated antisemitism, they could at least be contained within Gaza, safely away from Israeli citizens. His calculation was that, if Israel isolated Hamas for long enough, it would eventually learn to come to terms with the status quo.

Now, Bibi has to play a delicate balancing game. The prime minister needs to avoid angering the Arab world as he seeks to normalize ties with his country’s neighbors. At the same time, Bibi needs to placate the far-right wing of his coalition, which wants to expand Jewish settlements within the West Bank in contravention of international law. Since settlements would not expand if Palestine became a sovereign state, Bibi isolated Gaza and split it from the West Bank. Thanks to Bibi, a two-state solution is near impossible. Instead, he has kept Hamas at bay by tightly controlling movement through the border checkpoints between Gaza and Israel. 

The plan worked, until it didn’t. To many seasoned analysts including both the authors, a blowup was inevitable. No one, however, predicted the scale and horror of the eventual outcome.

So what happens now?

Gaza is one of the most densely populated portions of the world, and it is urbanized from top to bottom. This means that any invasion would not only be extremely difficult from a military perspective but would also inevitably result in appalling levels of civilian casualties. In any case, it is difficult to imagine Israel — which has not even nine and a half million citizens itself — could sustain an occupation for any great stretch of time. And it would need to do so in order to root out all elements of Hamas, let alone construct something which could replace it.

But it cannot simply continue the air war, either. Already, public services and essential resources are stretched beyond their capacity by the Israeli blockade. If Israel continues to strike Hamas targets from the sky, it will continue to degrade the civilian infrastructure of Gaza, precipitating a humanitarian crisis. This would cause heavy damage to support for Israel in the West. It would also create antipathy in Arab countries, upending the promising peace processes that have been making progress since 1973. The outrage on the Arab street might even precipitate a second Arab uprisings and a broader regional war.

In the light of the above, Israel must tread carefully. Furthermore, the country has to worry about its economy. The government has mobilized at least 300,000 men, representing 13% or more of the male labor force. A reduced workforce will inevitably lead to lower economic output. The 1973 Yom Kippur War was followed by recession in Israel and this war could inflict much economic pain as well.

Israel’s actions are putting Arab leaders in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states in a bind. They have sympathies for Gazans but no love lost for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. As stated earlier, these leaders are afraid that Islamist movements could stoke revolution within their own borders.

Remember, Egypt was controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood until its 2013 coup d’état brought down the then president Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Brotherhood. This Islamic organization remains a large presence in Egypt. Hence, General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s regime has been especially keen to shut Hamas out. This is why Egypt, the only other country that shares a border with Gaza, has cooperated with Israel’s blockade.

The greatest potential for disruption comes not from the Sunni Arab states, but from Shia Iran and its co-religionist allies in the region. Although Hamas is a Sunni organization, Shia Iran has been its best friend. Iran is an Islamist theocracy and thus views Israel as its archenemy. It has allies close to Israeli territory, like Syria, controlled by the Alawite dictator Bashar al-Assad, and the militant Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah. Like Hamas, Hezbollah is based close to Israel’s borders and could launch rocket attacks across the country.

Qatar and Turkey, too, have supported Hamas by providing them funding and support. Most international aid does not go to the Palestinian people but is diverted toward building tunnels and buying weapons for Hamas. So, between the Israeli blockade and Hamas’s taking the lion’s share of resources, Gazans are left with precious little. Gazans are young, hopeless, destitute and angry. They are the perfect fodder for radicalization.

The Israel-Hamas conflict is not only important for Gaza, Israel, the Middle East but also the rest of the world. An extended conflict will drive more borrowing, increased interest rates and higher inflation. The conflict will increase exchange rate volatility, exposing export services businesses to potential currency exchange losses. It could very well tip an already beleaguered global economy into a slowdown.

NOTE: We have been publishing content on the Israel-Palestine issue for years. To make sense of it all, you can read Atul Singh’s 2012 piece on the history of this conflict and Professor Avi Shlaim’s interview on the cause of this conflict. To understand the state Israeli politics were in just before this attack, you can read this May 2023 piece by Gary Grappo, a former US ambassador in the Middle East. For more video content, you can also watch this FO° Exclusive discussion by Singh and Carle about Bibi’s deeply divisive judicial reforms as well as Singh’s conversation about the fallout of the present war with former Israeli peace negotiator Joseph Olmert.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Big Trouble in Israel and Gaza appeared first on Fair Observer.

It turned out that elements close to the top of the Indian government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi were aware of my arrival and had decided to “invite” me on a tour. Eventually, they told me that they were dissatisfied with the image the American media presented of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Modi people wanted to show me “what India is really like,” and what the BJP government was seeking to accomplish.

They insisted that they were not intolerant, much less the fascistic, anti-Muslim nationalists some observers were describing them to be. Those were the biased criticisms of the anglicized, socialistic English-speaking Congress party elites with whom foreign journalists interact. For three weeks, they took me all over western and northern India and gave me better entrée to the corridors of power than most senior diplomats could ever hope to obtain. They showed me how India’s power elites, both BJP and Congress party supporters, see India, as well as what the Modi government wants for the country. 

India’s national self-image is changing

For a thousand years, India was ruled by Muslims, like the Mughals, and later by the British. Hindus were powerless subjects. But Modi’s BJP government sees India as a Hindu nation. This is the concept of Hindutva, a view of Indian society and government, first enunciated during India’s struggles for independence against the British, which has guided the BJP since 1989.

Hindutva considers the Hindu religion as the basis of Indian culture and society. This is a powerful nationalistic break from the millennium of colonial subjugation and from the first sixty years of Indian independence, in which India embraced a secular, civic nationalist identity.

The Congress-party opponents of the BJP consider this concept of Indian society and government to be a dangerous betrayal of India’s multicultural, tolerant and socialist post-colonial democracy. A majority of Hindus seem to feel empowered by Hindutva, however. Modi and the BJP consistently win substantial support at the polls and in opinion polling, and Modi’s reelection in 2024 seems likely.

Hindutva strikes me as a powerful resurgence of national pride, but nationalism also can foster dangerous intolerance. Human Rights Watch finds that there has been an increase in protests against alleged government human rights violations since Modi’s election and that government use of violence to suppress dissent has also increased. The BJP dismisses such criticisms: “The BJP is at least as democratic as the corrupt and totalitarian Congress party and the Gandhis,” I was told repeatedly by BJP supporters. 

FO° Talks: Rank Hypocrisy: Do Global Rankings Misrepresent India?

India is a rising world power

One sees evidence of India’s economic dynamism everywhere. Partially finished new highways and skyscrapers loom overhead even as cows continue to sit placidly in the middle of major roads. Most educated Indians see themselves as citizens of a nascent world power. I was told repeatedly that “over 250 million” Indians have risen from extreme poverty in recent years, the BJP supporters intimating that this was due to Modi’s economic liberalism and industrial policies. The United Nations Development Programme presents a more nuanced picture, showing a decline in poverty that, while indeed impressive, began long before the BJP came to power. 

Many Indians do feel that India’s bureaucratic sclerosis continues to slow economic development. Yet the World Bank now ranks India 63rd in its 2023 “Ease of Doing Business” report, up from 140th in 2014. When I was there, I sensed a country defining itself more by a burgeoning world-class economy than by timeless squalor, pre-modern stasis and colonial bureaucracy.

An Indian Entrepreneur Talks Growth, Regulation and Corruption

Much of India’s media expresses a simplistic, jingoistic nationalism due to pressure from the BJP according to government critics. Old ways of thought die hard, too: I heard many statements about how Russia remained a “trustworthy friend” and that the US was predatory and had sided with Pakistan for over sixty years.

These are vestigial echoes of a defensive, postcolonial, anti-Western, Congress-party-led India. The power elites with whom I met proudly highlighted India’s growing confidence as a global power. India is involving itself in the geopolitics of the Caucasus and the Indo-Pacific, aspiring to set global standards for semiconductor chips, building a world-class space program and diversifying its arms purchases as it develops its own arms production industry. 

Many of the foreign policy experts with whom I spoke now consider India’s top strategic priority to be counterbalancing China. India’s leadership in the “Global South” or the non-aligned movements, participation in the BRICS organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and increasing involvement in Indo-Pacific military maneuvers and in US-centric organizations such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue all seek to strengthen India as a nascent, independent global peer to the US, China and Russia, but above all they seek to counterbalance China. This is why Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar talks of India as a “south-western power” — part of the Global South — but with “very strong bonding” to the West and to Western norms.

India has long sought a seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The UN is nearly unreformable, though, and as a result, the world’s powers will slowly create alternative arrangements to address some of the problems of global governance. The G7 grouping of the world’s richest democracies has taken on increased strategic importance following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. One can thus expect India to pursue, and probably achieve, G7 membership, making a “G8.”

The death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar signals new audaciousness from a rising India

Nothing shows more strikingly India’s new bold and assertive attitude than the recent incident that occurred between New Delhi and Ottowa over the death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

Nijjar, a Canadian citizen, had been active in Sikh separatist politics. He organized an unofficial referendum among Sikhs resident in Canada on the independence from India of a new Sikh “country” named Khalistan. In June, Nijjar was gunned down in British Columbia. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared the killing had been an assassination, planned by India.

FO° Exclusive: Indo–Canadian Tensions Signal New Indian Assertiveness on Global Stage

India, of course, denies having assassinated Nijjar, but for years has characterized him as a “terrorist.” India accused him of conspiring to organize a terrorist attack in 2018. India says that Trudeau has made his accusation in order to curry domestic political favor among Canada’s large Sikh population. It is likely, however, that Canada is telling the truth, given the diplomatic costs to Canada’s international standing of making spurious allegations about assassination and Trudeau’s explicit references to “credible allegations” collected by Canada’s intelligence agencies. The countries mutually expelled diplomat to show their anger. Relations between Canada and India have never been worse. 

More significant than the tensions between India and Canada, however, is what the assassination says about the “stronger” India of Prime Minister Modi and about the Indian intelligence service’s apparently more aggressive role in India’s foreign policies.

“They need to understand that this is not the same India,” said Vineet Joshi, a senior BJP official. India now, he asserted, “is much stronger under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi.”

India’s foreign intelligence organization is the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Its mission is the same as those of the American CIA, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, or Britain’s MI6: to collect foreign intelligence on countries of strategic interest. But the RAW, like these other organizations, also conducts “covert actions.” Traditionally, the RAW has carried out covert operations against targets, including Sikh terrorists, within or near Indian territory. These operations are reputed to have included assassinations, but Nijjar’s assassination would be the first that the RAW is believed to have committed in a Western nation.

States often believe that covert actions offer them solutions to otherwise intractable problems. They believe that there will be no political cost because the actions are “covert.” The reality, however, is that most covert actions are eventually traced to the service that conducts them. When they become publicly known, they cause significant unintended negative consequences — just as we are observing with India’s likely assassination of Nijjar. 

It is too early to know whether the “benefits” of the RAW’s assassination of Nijjar — eliminating an individual threatening India’s political integrity — outweigh the damage to India–Canada relations, to India’s standing and influence in the world and the possible increased hostility of India’s long-disgruntled Sikh population in consequence. Nijjar’s death, however, surely signals that India sees itself as “stronger” and freer to pursue its objectives unilaterally than at any time since Indian independence in 1947.

The event illustrates how India is now flexing the sometimes-obtuse muscles of a superpower. It also reveals a significant global expansion of the RAW’s covert actions, transgressing international and democratic norms in pursuit of what India considers vital national interests.

A newer, bolder India moves into the future

I never so much as glimpsed the Himalayas during my three weeks in India. Instead, I saw an India that will soon be the world’s third-largest economy, that is proud to now be the fourth nation to land on the Moon and that is playing a progressively large and confident role in international affairs. I saw an India that seeks influence in the “Global South” and closer relations with the West to counterbalance China. I saw an India that is struggling to overcome its colonial and socialist bureaucratic legacy and historical hostility to the West. I saw an India that, as it recently demonstrated, is ready to pursue its perceived national interests globally in spite of the costs.

It seemed to me that the BJP, in its efforts to free India of the harmful effects of a thousand years of foreign domination and three generations of socialist torpor and crony leadership, risks alienating its non-Hindu populations and sliding into intolerant majoritarian rule and a strong-man system of government. We will have to see.

[Newsweek Japan first published a version of this piece.]

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

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

The post India Is Growing Confident in Its New Role as a Powerful Nation appeared first on Fair Observer.

It is now clear that the Western effort has failed. Europe might have stopped buying as much oil and gas from Russia as before, but China and India stepped in to fill the void. According to state newswire RIA Novosti, trade with China increased 32% year on year in the first eight months of 2023 to $155 billion, while trade with India tripled in the first half of the year to $33 billion. Both these large and energy-hungry economies were only too happy to buy deeply discounted Russian oil and gas.

Russia is a formidable fortress economy

Russia may be no Soviet Union, but — like the US — it is a fortress economy. Russia has plenty of grain, more than enough oil and gas, a lot of metals and a sufficient number of engineers. The Russian economy is capable of making goods necessary to sustain a war effort, and it is not overly reliant on international trade. Fossil fuel exports seemed to be Russia’s Achilles’ heel, but that has not proved to be the case. So, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s sanction-proofing efforts have been crowned with success.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast Russia’s gross domestic product will grow by 1.5% this year and 1.3% in 2024. Putin has been more bullish, predicting 2.8% growth this year, more than double the maximum rate his own cabinet predicted in April. Oleg Deripaska, the founder of leading aluminum producer Rusal, says that the Wunderwaffe (wonder-weapon) of weaponizing the financial system against Russia has not worked. Despite sanctions, seizing reserves and throwing Russia out of the international SWIFT banking system, its economy is still growing.

Of course, this growth does not mean that the Russian economy is doing swimmingly. Russia remains a sluggish and largely state-owned economy plagued by low productivity, low utilization and low wages. Russia is no Asian tiger with top-level semiconductor manufacturing. Instead, the Siberian tiger has long since grown fat and happy by living off of the fossil fuel trade.

Even though Russia may have survived the war well, it is still fundamentally a petrostate and a commodity exporter. According to Carle, Russia’s oil game is only profitable in the long run with oil over $100 a barrel, and prices are currently in the 90s. Besides, embargoes on oil and gas have put substantial inflationary pressure on the economy. The ruble has lost a third of its value this year, largely erasing the gains it made after the initial crash at the beginning of the invasion. 

India and China haven’t totally made up for Russia’s shortfall either, and even sales to those states have slumped this year compared to last year’s levels. Over the next five years, Russia’s fundamental economic weaknesses will make themselves evident. Still, this will not happen quickly enough to help Ukraine. So, Russia will be able to keep up this level of involvement in the war for as long as necessary. 

As Carl von Clausewitz said, war is a contest of wills, and it is not at all evident that the Western coalition’s will to continue fighting is stronger than Russia’s. The possibility of a Russian victory, if the West’s cohesion cracks, is realistic.

Ukraine is under great stress

Unlike Russia, the Ukrainian economy is making no recovery from its disastrous economic crash last year. This year, it is expected to grow by only 0.5%. Last year, the Ukrainian gross domestic product (GDP) contracted by 30%. This means that Ukraine’s GDP will be only 70.35% of the 2021 GDP on December 31 this year. This is grim news for its people. 

Furthermore, an additional 7.1 million Ukrainians are estimated to live in poverty. There has been a 15-year setback in poverty reduction goals. Ukraine needs $11 billion for repairs and essential services for this year. Six million Ukrainians are refugees, and a further eight million are internally displaced. If it had not had Western support, Ukraine would have already collapsed.

Ukraine desperately needs the support of its Western friends, and relations are fraying at what could not be a worse time. Ukraine has disputes with neighbors like Poland and Hungary, and public support is waning in powers like the US and Germany. Tensions over funding Ukraine are a big part of America’s government shutdown crisis, only temporarily averted on October 1. In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has been gaining in the polls, outstripping older mainstream parties. If the AfD gains more seats in the elections, the party will inevitably weaken German support for Ukraine.

The final outcome of the Russia–Ukraine War is not a foregone conclusion. Ukrainian victory, Russian victory or some sort of compromise for peace are all still possible. But, if current trends continue and nothing changes, it looks like Putin could very well win the waiting game.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: How Are Ukrainian and Russian War Economies Doing Now? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Nijjar arrived in Canada in 1997 on a fraudulent passport and his citizen applications were rejected numerous times. He persisted, though, and gained citizenship in 2007. In 2020, India designated Nijjar as a terrorist, and two years later, India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) accused him of plotting to kill a Hindu priest in Punjab.

On June 18, Nijjar was gunned down by two masked assailants outside a gurdwara, a Sikh place of worship, in British Columbia. Trudeau blames this killing on India. The unusually public and grave nature of the accusation immediately set off a firestorm of reprisals between the two countries. India and Canada expelled each other’s diplomats, and India has suspended processing of visas for Canadian citizens.

Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer and Fair Observer’s resident intelligence expert, finds it implausible that the killing could have been a false flag operation or gang activity.

He takes the view that Canada is extremely circumspect in its public statements. As a middle power, Canada’s national interest lies in upholding a lawful and predictable international order. Unlike its superpower neighbor to the south or other great powers, Canada is not served by flouting this order. Nor is it given to making unfounded or false statements for some kind of Machiavellian advantage. Carle believes that it is inconceivable that Trudeau would have gone public with the accusation unless he was absolutely sure. It may well be that the evidence may not be enough to secure a conviction in a court of law, but from an intelligence perspective, this evidence is as certain as one could reasonably expect.

So, Canada is acting as a liberal, Western middle power naturally would act. Carle points out that what is really interesting is how India is acting. This is not the sort of behavior that we have seen from India in the past. In the past, India has only ever carried out killings or assassinations in its immediate neighborhood. This is the first time that India has ever reached out to strike a target so far afield and in a Western nation. This is the action of a superpower.

Carle takes the view that India has rapidly emerged as a force on the international stage. The country is beginning to flex its muscles as a true superpower. Indeed, even among established powers there is an informal rule that one may carry out assassinations in third party countries, but not on the territory of another power. Russia was the first to break this norm by assassinating dissenters on British soil. That India has done something comparable shows how audacious the young power has indeed become.

But why Canada?

India has had a troubled history with its Sikh minority. In the eyes of some Sikh leaders, after independence, Muslims got their own state (Pakistan) and Hindus their own (India), and Sikhs should have had their own state too. These leaders want this hypothetical state called Khalistan to be in Indian Punjab and do not claim any part of Pakistani Punjab — despite the facts that Lahore was the capital of the Sikh Empire and the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak, was born in Nankana Sahib and died in Kartarpur Sahib, both in Pakistan.

In the 1980s, demands for Khalistan increased and tensions reached a head. With Pakistan’s strong backing, Sikh separatists used terror tactics to further their aims. In June 1984, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi called in the troops to forcibly remove Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and other Sikh militants from the Golden Temple, the holiest Sikh site, in Amritsar, Punjab.

Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh points out how Indira (as he calls her to distinguish her from Mahatma Gandhi, who was not a relative of hers) tacitly supported Bhindranwale to win the Sikh vote. Sadly for Indira and India, her sly tactics backfired when the cultish Sikh leader turned into a Frantenstein’s monster. He holed up in the Golden Temple with weapons, challenging the integrity of the Indian state. Indira ordered Operation Blue Star, in which troops led by a Sikh general stormed the temple and killed Bhindranwale.

This military operation upset many Sikhs. In October, two of Indira’s bodyguards assasinated her. They were Sikhs. This set off a wave of retaliatory violence in which Indira’s Congress Party killed thousands of Sikhs. At that time, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the party championing India’s Hindu identity, opposed the riots. The BJP was later in alliance with the Shiromani Akali Dal, the leading Sikh party in the country. Both fought elections together in Punjab and were only voted out in 2022.

Singh points out that not all Sikhs then or now were separatists. In fact, most Sikhs enthusiastically joined India and became its best soldiers, diplomats, entrepreneurs and scholars. Over the decades, Sikhs have become a model minority. A Sikh, economist Manmohan Singh, went on to become prime minister for 10 years. The vast majority of Sikhs do not fancy the idea of an independent, landlocked Khalistan between India and Pakistan.

Singh pointedly states that what we have today are Khalistani cults, not a Khalistan movement. That died a long time ago. Now, charismatic preachers in places like Canada prey on immigrant insecurity to recruit young men for the Khalistani cause. In many ways, these Sikhs are just like Muslim jihadis fighting a holy war. Khalistani cult leaders compete for money and power with each other. Gang wars ensue and they are now causing problems for their host countries such as Canada, Australia and the UK.

Khalistani Terrorists Now Threaten Both India and the West

Sikhs have gone on to become successful around the world. Not only are they doing well in the US, the UK and Canada but they are also excelling in Kenya, Nepal and Singapore. In Italy, Sikhs play a big role in the parmesan and mozzarella businesses. Ajay Banga now heads the World Bank. Most Sikhs seek professional success and have little to do with the idea or demand for Khalistan.

There are pockets where things are different. In particular, Canada has the greatest number of extremist Sikhs. For these fanatics, the dream of Khalistan lives on. Carle points out that Sikhs form a higher proportion of the population in Canada than in India. Hence, they are politically significant. Minority. Four members of Trudeau’s cabinet come from a Sikh background. Singh points out that Trudeau heads a coalition government supported by the New Democratic Party. Its leader Jagmeet Singh is a Sikh. Many of these Canadian Sikh leaders tend to support the formation of Khalistan and have organized a referendum to this effect.

In India’s view, Canada has turned a blind eye to the activities of separatists and terrorists within its Sikh community. Sikh extremists have attacked Hindu temples with little response coming from Ottawa. Canada has refused to extradite suspected Sikh terrorists to India in the past. Indeed, Canada ignored a red notice on Nijjar from Interpol. Trudeau also notably supported a referendum held by Nijjar on the formation of Khalistan, deeply upsetting India. In short, Canada has allowed a real threat to the safety of Indians and the integrity of the Indian state to thrive on its soil. This is a legitimate grievance, and India feels that it is at the end of its rope. 

There is a long history of Indian grievances against Canada. In 1985, an Air India flight out of Canada blew up near Ireland, killing 329 people. That same day, baggage from another Air India flight out of Canada also exploded in Tokyo’s Narita airport. Investigators traced these acts to Khalistanis in Canada — without doubt terrorists in this instance. Indians have not forgotten that Pierre Trudeau, the father of the current prime minister, refused to extradite the terrorist accused of the 1985 bombing. In the eyes of millions of Indians, both father and son have the “white savior complex” and want to civilize barbaric Indians like many 19th century imperialists.

Much of what New Delhi views as a threat to national integrity is, from Ottowa’s point of view, free speech. Canada believes that it has given due process to the individuals that it has refused to extradite to India. For many Canadians, this killing was not only a murder, but also a threat to their country’s sovereignty and to the principles of mutual respect and non-interference that the international order is based on. 

Given the gulf in Indian and Canadian perceptions, relations between the two nations are in a tailspin. The key takeaway here is that a more brazen and assertive India will now enforce its interests globally. It will not just become a subservient member of the Western team. At the G20 Summit in Delhi, India presented itself as the leader of the Global South. Even though the G20 is a show horse that does little policymaking, posture and perception in international relations are also reality. 

The G20 Summit demonstrates how India perceives itself and how it wants to be perceived by others. India’s policy is no longer the simple non-alignment championed by Jawaharlal Nehru, its first prime minister. Instead, India has become an independent pole of the international system. Mostly it cooperates with the West, but sometimes the country goes its own way. India is involving itself in places far outside its near neighborhood, such as Armenia. As per Carle, it is clear that India has become one of the world’s three great powers. It ranks next only to the US and China in global significance.

Canada still has international clout as a wealthy Western nation. However, India has its levers too. Indian students fill Canadian schools, Indo–Canadian trade is significant and Ottawa wants a free trade deal with New Delhi.

Hopefully, though, as India exerts its influence, it will do so with more finesse than it did this time. A killing that becomes an international incident is hardly a successful operation. In any case, even the Mossad has had problems with assassination operations. The political costs almost always outweigh the tactical benefits. Yet the killing and the G20 Summit demonstrate that a new great power is on the rise and it is willing to defend its interests even on Western soil.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Indo–Canadian Tensions Signal New Indian Assertiveness on Global Stage appeared first on Fair Observer.

First, Qin disappeared from public view for the past month. He failed to attend a summit in Indonesia. Beijing pushed back his July 4 meeting with EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell. The very brief official explanation blamed unspecified health problems. Qin was one of the most high-level officials in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). So, it was strange for him to have been absent for this long. Now, Qin has been summarily dismissed.

The strange case of a summary sacking

When high-profile figures in China go out of public view for extended durations, criminal investigation can follow. However, they sometimes reappear with no explanation. Chinese President Xi Jinping himself vanished for a fortnight shortly before becoming the country’s leader in 2012. This prompted speculation about his health and possible power struggles within the CCP.

Qin rose and fell like Icarus. He was ambassador to the US where he gained fame in China and infamy elsewhere as a tough-talking “wolf-warrior” diplomat. Before his ambassadorial position, Qin had been a foreign ministry spokesman and had helped organize Xi’s trips overseas, giving him the opportunity to work closely with China’s de facto emperor.

Xi engineered Qin’s elevation and his fall has damaged China’s supreme leader. Clearly, the CCP’s top man has been making bad decisions and his judgment is suspect. Recently, Xi’s public problems have been increasing. Both his catastrophic zero-Covid policy and its silent, cowardly abandonment have hurt Xi’s reputation. He is also getting blamed for China’s real estate woes and a sputtering economy. Xi and the CCP stand damaged by Qin’s dismissal.

Wang, a career diplomat who speaks Japanese, is returning to a post he held between 2013 and 2022. The 69-year-old was standing in for Qin in recent weeks. Wang is an old hand. He was promoted to the Politburo of the CCP last year and is concurrently the head of the party’s Central Foreign Affairs Commission. His return might be a move to stabilize Chinese diplomacy. Wang has been the foreign minister before and is regarded as a very capable official. Therefore, his appointment bodes well for continuing the stabilization of US-China relations.

Reading the tea leaves: a change in policy?

No one really knows why Qin fell from favor. For a long time, he was Xi’s blue-eyed boy. Speculation abounds of an extramarital affair and sex scandals. Yet it could well be that palace intrigues in Zhongnanhai caused Qin’s downfall.

Qin might have become the sacrificial lamb for increasing frustration with Xi’s policies. Wolf warrior diplomacy is not as popular as it used to be. It has led to an almost universally hostile reaction, from both democratic and authoritarian states across the Indo-Pacific. They have now started organizing militarily, politically and economically against China. This has caused the CCP high and mighty in Zhongnanhai some alarm. 

Qin’s fall might be a sign of the pressure that China is feeling. The economy is experiencing lower growth rates, higher unemployment figures and more dissatisfaction. This does not mean that the CCP regime is about to collapse, but Xi and his party have certainly lost some of their shine. So, they have to do something.

China might be nominally communist but is culturally Confucian. The state is sacrosanct and, by extension, so is the Xi-led CCP. If something is not working, it must be the fault of an individual minister, official or party member. So, a fallible scapegoat must be found. Qin might have taken the hit to preserve the infallibility of Xi and the CCP.
More importantly for our purposes, what does Qin’s dismissal and Wang’s return mean for the Chinese foreign policy. A priori, it seems that Beijing is likely to be more conciliatory at least in its tone. Wang has more relationships with his foreign counterparts than Qin. This should help Wang to smooth some ruffled feathers. Xi wants continuity and predictability, not description and volatility, right now.

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Chinese Foreign Minister Is Suddenly and Mysteriously Axed appeared first on Fair Observer.

The legal reforms concern the power of the elected government versus the power of the courts to scrutinize and even overrule government decisions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu’s government argues that reform is overdue. So do some others who argue that the judiciary is leftist, elitist and unaccountable. They believe that the judiciary interferes too much with legislation, is biased in support of liberal issues and is undemocratic in the way judges are selected.

A large number of Israelis oppose these reforms because they fear that the country’s narrowly elected governments in general and Bibi in particular will become far too powerful. A simple majority in the Knesset would change laws easily, leading to a lack of certainty and continuity in Israel’s legal and constitutional system. This would damage public life, rule of law and long term Israeli interests.

What are these legal reforms?

At the heart of the reforms and the controversy is the so-called “reasonableness” bill. This removes the Supreme Court’s power to cancel government decisions it deems unreasonable. Besides the “reasonableness” law, the government wants to:

— Weaken the power of the Supreme Court to review or throw out laws,
enabling a simple majority of one in the Knesset to overrule such decisions.

— Have a decisive say over who becomes a judge, including in the Supreme
Court, by increasing its representation on the committee which appoints
them.

— Scrap the requirement for ministers to obey the advice of their legal advisers,
guided by the attorney general, which they currently have to do by law.

The bill to overturn the reasonableness standard is part of a package of legislation unveiled by Justice Minister Yariv Levin in January. The reasonableness standard gained prominence later that same month, when Israel’s High Court of Justice disqualified the Shas party chairman Arye Dery from serving as health and interior minister on these grounds, due to his conviction on charges of tax evasion, corruption as a public official, bribery and fraud.

Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition

Currently, Israel is ruled by a coalition government consisting of six parties: Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Religious Zionist Party, Otzma Yehudit and Noam. United Torah Judaism and Shas are Haredi religious parties. Haredis are characterized by their strict adherence to rabbinical halakha (Jewish law) and oppose modern, Western values. They form 13.3% of Israel’s population.

Bibi formed his latest government on December 29, 2022, following the collapse of the coalition government led by Naftali Bennet and Yair Lapid. Israel’s politics with its proportional representation system is known for fractious coalitions. This government is regarded as the most right-leaning government in Israel’s history.

The Israeli Supreme Court disqualified Dery because it found his appointment to be “unreasonable in the extreme.” The Shas leader had been convicted three times of criminal offenses and failed in his previous public positions to “serve the public loyally and lawfully.” The decision and legal doctrine behind it sparked immediate backlash on the right and put Bibi, the longstanding leader of Likud, in the uncomfortable position of having to deny a ministerial position to a loyal and powerful coalition ally.

Dr. Amir Fuchs, a Senior Researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, takes the view that the standard of reasonableness refers to a balance between political and public interests in decision-making. An “unreasonable” decision is therefore one which “disproportionately focuses on political interests without sufficient consideration for public trust and its protection.”

Who is protesting and why?

Protesters have called for all the planned reforms to be scrapped and for Bibi to resign. Not only Bibi’s political rivals but also former top officials in Israel’s military, intelligence and security services, former chief justices, and prominent legal figures and business leaders, amongst others, oppose the reforms.

Israel’s Histadrut trade union confederation has threatened a general strike, and thousands of military personnel have vowed to not report for duty if the law is allowed to stand. First, over 1,000 Israeli Air Force reserve officers, including pilots, navigators and special forces threatened not to report for voluntary reserve duty. Then, another 10,000 Israeli Defense Force (IDF) reservists threatened the same.

Bibi’s critics oppose the reforms because:

— Reforms will severely undermine the country’s democracy by weakening the
judicial system, the only tool for keeping the government in check.

— New laws might protect Bibi who is currently on trial for alleged corruption
(he denies the charges) and help his government pass laws with narrow
majorities for short-term political gain.

— The proposed system will change far too frequently, creating legal uncertainty
and a lack of continuity.

— So-called reforms will weaken public life, rule of law and long-term Israeli
interests.

Is this the end of Israeli democracy?

In some ways, we have been watching the slow suicide of the Israeli state for years. The exceedingly religious ultra-orthodox Jews have more children than their secular counterparts. They now comprise a larger percentage of Israel’s population and have greater power in its fractious democracy. The religious extremism of these ultra-orthodox has been rising too. They now have the numbers and the determination not only to play kingmaker but also to bend the state to their will. Bibi has gotten into bed with them in his single-minded pursuit of power.

In the first-past-the-post system of the US, the UK and India, the ultra-orthodox would not have such disproportionate power. Israel’s proportional representation system sets the electoral threshold at 3.25%. The number of seats a party receives in the Knesset is proportional to the number of votes it receives. So if a party gets 5% of the votes, it gets six seats out of 120. Ironically, this increases the power of the smaller parties and their leaders who choose their lackeys to be members of the Knesset. So, upsetting Dery is not an option for Bibi if he wants to cling on to his crown.

This increased power of the Knesset to change laws by small majorities runs counter to the cultural DNA of Israel. In 1948, most Israelis were Ashkenazis who immigrated from continental Europe. Therefore, Israeli democracy has less in common with the British Westminster parliamentary cousin and is more akin to continental Europe. Israel has implemented Montesquieu’s separation of powers with the judiciary keeping its unstable coalition governments in check.

Of course, there is an argument for more democratic oversight of the judiciary. It is strongly left-leaning and may no longer represent the values of Israeli society. However, the Bibi-led Likud and its allies are pushing such a major reform through in a hasty, heavy-handed way. Bibi has made a Faustian pact with the far-right and is doing away with checks and balances. He is bringing a more unitary system which is majoritarian and risks turning authoritarian. The fact that this reform favors politicians with criminal convictions or risk of such convictions is deeply disturbing. That is why thousands are turning to the streets.

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Make Sense of Israel’s New Tumultuous Judicial Reform appeared first on Fair Observer.

These are not the riots to hit France. The first banlieue riots occurred in 1979 in Vaulx-en-Velin, a poor suburb of Lyon, when a teenager slit his veins after an arrest for stealing a car. Two years later, another attempt to deal with a car theft sparked days of rioting in nearby Vénissieux. 

The deaths of two youths in the same area resulted in similar troubles in 1990 and 1993. 

By far the worst unrest occurred in 2005. Two teenagers died in an electrical substation near Paris while hiding from police. Suburbs erupted up and down the country. Cars were burnt, shops looted and police attacked, triggering a three-week state of emergency.

Why is France experiencing yet more riots?

There are two countervailing views on this issue. One view is that the violence is the result of poverty and discrimination. Entrenched social ills ensure that France’s bleak estates remain tinderboxes. Another view holds that the rioting is mainly a law-and-order issue. Gangs and petty criminals are using anger over a tragic death as an excuse to sow mayhem.

Both views hold some water. In 1977, then Prime Minister Raymond Barre launched the first plan to regenerate housing estates, expressing concern that they might turn into “ghettos” but somehow this effort never succeeded. France’s infamous bureaucrats have set up one official body after another but none of them have really succeeded.

France has the National Council for Cities, the Inter-ministerial Commission for Cities of Urban Social Development, the National Agency for Urban Renewal and many others. An alphabet soup of acronyms for various initiatives, from FNRU (Nation Programme for Urban Renovation) to ZUS (Sensitive Urban Zones) is a testimony to the failure of imagination and implementation by elitist and out-of-touch French bureaucrats.

At the same time, law and order has indeed declined in France. Anyone who has gone to Montmartre has faced hassle while the police look the other way. Furthermore, many banlieues are no-go areas for most people, including sometimes the police. Given the fact that the people in these poor neighborhoods are from former French colonies, they have a sense of resentment against their former oppressors. Continued experience of discrimination, exclusion and racism hardens those feelings.

A divided society

When Glenn lived in Grenoble in 1976, he often walked home alone after 11:00 pm. Most French cities, other than Paris, were then quiet at night. The only other people out on the street were lone, forlorn, Muslim North African men who had been brought in as “temporary workers,” without being allowed to bring their families. These workers have stayed on and brought their wives and have had children.

This immigrant population still finds itself foreign in France. Many French do not really consider them as French. Also, many immigrants themselves do not want to abandon their roots, especially if they are Muslim. France may not be experiencing a clash of civilizations but there is indeed a clash of cultures.

French secularism—laïcité—has shut out religion from the state. In the past, this struggle was with Catholicism. The state won that victory conclusively. Now, this struggle is with Islam. This underlines the bikini-burkini tension in la grande nation.

France being France, the state is extraordinarily overweening. The government controls 59% of the GDP. This means the unit of power is the French state and the seat of power is Paris, i.e. elite bureaucrats and politicians. Note that politicians are often former elite bureaucrats, (including almost all French presidents over the last seven decades) who run the country in an excessively centralized manner. So, the French blame the state for almost all their frustrations and look upon capturing the state to achieve any progress. This means the cycle set off in 1789 of mobs taking to the streets continues.

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

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

The country’s economic growth is flagging. China’s central bank has been lowering interest rates in a feeble attempt to stir investment. The real estate sector, one of China’s main drivers of growth, is very weak. Loans made for unsuccessful real estate ventures now fill the books of many Chinese banks. The bubble is just waiting to pop, which would be a catastrophe in an economy where a whopping 70% of individual investors’ portfolios are tied up in real estate.

China knows that its economy is weakening. Expectations are no longer so strong (at least in the medium term), that a rising Middle Kingdom will vanquish its adversaries and replace the US as the dominant power in the region. Beijing seems to be taking a different tack, and it is calming down its aggressive rhetoric against the US. It is beginning, indeed, to seek rapprochement.

Really, Rapprochement with the US? 

After so many years of wolf warrior diplomacy, this new-found reasonableness is hard to believe. Atul Singh and Glenn Carle explain how such a surprising change in direction may be coming about.

Underneath it all, Atul reminds us, is the “very simple social contract” which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has with its citizens. The communist regime’s credibility doesn’t rest on any democratic legitimacy but on its sheer ability to get results—prosperity. If it cannot provide that, its very existence is in question.

Without a crystal ball, no one can predict what will happen to China when the bubble inevitably bursts. Glenn refers to conversations he has had with Indian leaders who are watching developments in China with keen interest. They suggest that their northern neighbor may well weather the storm. Glenn is not so sure.

It is far more uncertain how China will navigate the middle income trap: the natural stagnation of growth that occurs when economies attempt to move from manufacturing into services. It will not be nearly as easy for China to repeat its strong growth of the last few decades, no matter how clever the CCP’s economic policy tsars may be.

All this has led Chinese leaders to come to terms with reality and look to the US for cooperation. Despite hawkish rhetoric from partisan ideologues on both sides, cooler heads among policymakers seem to be signaling rapprochement. However, this may not be possible.

The problem, as Glenn explains, is that China wants to put aside economic and trade disagreements with the US while leaving political issues outstanding. This may be too much of an ask. It seems doubtful that the US and China will be able to successfully work together while they maintain mutually incompatible goals in Taiwan and in the South China Sea. 

At the heart of the matter is a fundamental disagreement. The ruling power wants to remain top dog. The rising power wants to usurp that position. The Thucidides trap remains strong and the risk of conflict high.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Distressed China Plays Nice With US for Now appeared first on Fair Observer.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, India changed course. Over time, it has moved closer to the US. Recently, the winds of change have been blowing harder. The US and India might not be allies but they are behaving as strategic partners. The US has authorized the sale to India of high-tech jet engines, something it has never done before. American and Indian entrepreneurs and engineers are working closely together to develop new semiconductor and software technologies. The countries have settled six outstanding trade disputes they had held at the World Trade Organization. Things are looking bright.

President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have summed this all up very visibly with the latter’s state visit to the United States. The meeting is more than a symbolic expression of goodwill. The pomp and circumstance represent a real change in Indo-US relations. 

As tensions with China have increased, the US has come to see India as a natural ally. However, India has sought to keep its distance from the capitalist superpower. Having endured the scarring experience of colonization at the hands of the British, Indians were in no mood to let another English-speaking global empire tell them how to direct their foreign policy. 

Therefore, Nehru started the Non-Aligned Movement and tried to steer clear of becoming a subordinate power of either the US or the Soviet Union. Atul points out that the US further lost Indian trust by conducting the 1953 coup in Iran for a British oil company. Indians perceived this move as highly colonial. This was only made worse when the US supported India’s archrival Pakistan, particularly from the 1960s.

In the 2020s, things are changing. This is not just because the two enormous, ethnically diverse and rambunctious federal democracies have much in common, or even because of America’s influential Indian minority. More than anything, Glenn explains, India is moving towards the US because of their common fear of a rising and threatening China.

China is now the second most important global power. Its meteoric economic and technological growth has given it tremendous clout. Beijing is also putting pressure on India’s northern borders. Like the US, India wants a free Indo-Pacific region. It does not want the South China Sea to turn into a Chinese lake. Hence, the two imperfect, rambunctious democracies are making common cause against a common threat.

Glenn takes the view that India will not take the backseat in great power conflict any longer. It is no longer the struggling and uncertain ex-colony that it was in those earlier decades. India is now a young, vibrant and assertive society, which is beginning to make its power felt on the world stage. India will not be pushed around by China, and it will make the friends it needs to pursue its national interests. The US is going to be its most important friend.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Narendra Modi’s Consequential US Trip appeared first on Fair Observer.

Yevgeny Prigozhin, leader of the private military force called Wagner Group, riveted global attention last month. Prigozhin took elements of his 25,000-strong private army away from the Ukrainian front and led them on an abortive drive to Moscow. The open rebellion even included capturing the major Russian city of Rostov, where generals overseeing the Russian war effort are based. His claimed goal was to secure the firing of Sergei Shoigu, Vladimir Putin’s bungling defense minister whom Prigozhin accuses of sabotaging Wagner’s efforts in Ukraine.

When all was said and done a short 24 hours later, however, Prigozhin had given up, ostensibly accepting a sort of exile in Belarus while allowing the regular army to absorb his troops, leaving international observers bewildered. Putin had labeled Prigozhin a traitor and vowed to bring him to justice just hours before. Why would Prigozhin give up without a fight?

Glenn Carle, a retired CIA man and no stranger to the psychology of power, adds context to the story. The glory from Wagner Group’s capture of the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut was fading. The regular army was taking legal steps to sideline Prigozhin, remove his influence and co-opt his troops. Prigozhin seems to have taken the last possible chance, while he still had a position, to make a bid for influence. He may have been afraid for his life, thinking that his rivals would seek revenge after he lost influence. It is also likely that alcohol abuse was affecting his mental state.

Glenn reminds listeners that Yevgeny Prigozhin is no military genius. He is driven and brutal, but he is essentially still a street thug that got lucky. There may have been no grand strategy behind his surrender; plausibly, he simply gave up after the support he was hoping to see from segments of the military failed to materialize. After all, a force of 25,000 men is not all that much in a nation of over 140 million.

Western onlookers were no doubt excited by the prospect of Putin’s regime collapsing due to a rebellion, and when the rebellion failed they comforted themselves with the narrative that the Putin regime was at least now weakened, the dictator appearing vulnerable. Glenn dismisses this analysis. Sure, Putin’s dictatorship is brittle, but all dictatorships are. Something brittle is strong until it breaks. As long as he is in power, Putin retains the ability to assert his control and to punish anyone who opposes him, as he is certainly willing to do. Scores of former Putin opponents met their ends drinking a teacup doped with poison; why should Prigozhin expect anything different?

Ukraine is in trouble. Western resolve is more fragile than Russian resolve, and Putin knows it. This Prigozhin kerfuffle is unlikely to have any substantial impact on the war. If it is to survive in its present form, Ukraine must defeat the Russians on the battlefield, overcoming their formidable defenses and pushing them out of the country tactically, not attritionally.

The country’s economy was already crippled before the Kakhovka dam disaster left half a million hectares of cropland without a source of irrigation. In a country that supplies a significant chunk of global cereal supplies and over half of its sunflower oil, the downstream effects can be enormous.

At the end of the segment, Glenn fields some viewer questions. Glenn compares Wagner Group with the American private military company Blackwater and discusses the likelihood that American or Ukrainian intelligence services were involved in the debacle.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Big Drama in Russia-Ukraine War 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.

The earth’s population is still growing at breakneck speed. We expect to add another half billion human lives to the world in the next few years, and all of those lives will require water, to drink, to bathe, to grow their food. Demand for water is projected to increase dramatically, by a factor of 40% in just the next seven years.

This comes at a time when freshwater resources in lakes and aquifers are dwindling alarmingly. The world is heating up, and rainfall—if it comes at all—evaporates more rapidly. Forests too, which used to capture rainfall and prevent runoff, have been stripped bare and no longer provide their natural function.

Climate Change Is Now a Defense Matter

It’s not just the baking Sahara or India that are feeling the heat. Even the traditionally water-rich United States, which has until now enjoyed water-guzzling lawns and golf courses with careless abandon, many areas are already facing crisis levels of drought; even in the rainy Northeast, far away from the drought-stricken Colorado basin which has made so mant headlines, local authorities have already had to ration water.

Many are looking for salvation in desalination technologies. While these may be a welcome strategy for high-tech, low-population economies like Israel is and Saudi Arabia aspires to become, don’t hold your breath for implementation at any scale large enough to meet the needs of a country like the United States. If Americans are going to have to have enough water in the near future they’re going to have to do the one thing they hate the most: cut back. Not just on those lush green lawns, either, but also—even worse—on beef.

The Solution to Water Scarcity Lies With Corporate Leaders

The fallout of water scarcity is much more than economic. Drought has been the unsung villain behind the bloody conflicts in Syria and Sudan. When crops fail for lack of hydration, farmers become migrants, and those migrants fill up the cities—which are already feeling the strain. Suddenly, ethnic, religious, and political divides which had been inter-regional are now conflict with the the neighbors next door, and it takes very little for some spark to ignite violence, and for violence to flare up into civil war.

Given the prognoses on global temperatures, rainfall, and water use in an economically and demographically growing world, the situation is not likely to get better soon.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Water Is Becoming Dangerously Scarce appeared first on Fair Observer.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is no spring chicken. At 84, intimations of mortality are nigh. Should Khamenei’s faculties wane and were he to die, a power struggle will ensue. There is no clear line of succession. Hence, contenders will inevitably jostle for the throne.

This struggle will cause cleavages within the ruling elite. There is a real risk of civil war. Already, rising discontent has brought thousands out on the street. Young people, especially young women, have revolted bravely and chipped away at the edifice of Iran’s Islamic state.

Why are Young People Protesting in Iran?

Tensions in Iran are increasing. Even as literacy has risen, jobs are few and economic hardship is on the rise. The Islamic regime is struggling to meet the expectations of the people. Furthermore, a large number of young people are turning more secular and sometimes even irreligious. If the Islamic Republic’s elite fractures, the mullahs’ grip on power will inevitably slip and Iran might experience yet another revolution.

The foreign policy ramifications of these developments is immense. The US still characterizes Iran as a destabilizing power. However, Iran has lost its revolutionary fervor. For the last 25 years, Iran has no longer been the expansionist threat that it originally was in 1979. However, Iran’s hardline Shia regime still remains obsessively anti-Israel and supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

If there were to be a regime change, it is plausible that Iran’s fraught relationships with many of its neighbors could improve. This includes not only Jewish Israel and Satanic US but also Sunni Saudi Arabia and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Iran’s Mullahs Are Now in Trouble appeared first on Fair Observer.

Carle argues that the election, while technically free, was stacked in favor of the incumbent—with restrictions on press freedom, and Erdoğan’s most charismatic opponent in jail—rendering his win unsurprising, to say the least.

Singh takes the view that Erdoğan won because the Turkish people opted for national security over economic prosperity. The Turkish president has followed supremely stupid economic policies. In particular, he has cut interest rates at a time of rising inflation. In the past, Singh has written about how Erdonomics is driving Tukey to disaster. Yet he acknowledges that Erdoğan has some great strengths. He has been able to project himself as a modern day sultan who is keeping Turkey safe at a tricky time in a tough neighborhood.

Sultan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Erdonomics is Driving Turkey to Disaster

Fundamentally, voters preferred Erdoğan’s Islamist, nationalist, and anti-Kurdish outlook to a ragtag coalition of Kemalists, Kurds and Islamists. The opposition had little in common except a united hatred of Erdoğan. Singh also observes that opposition candidate Kemal Kilicdaroglu had the charisma of a dead mouse. No wonder Erdoğan, a charismatic street fighter and a rabble rouser, beat Kilicdaroglu.

Despite Erdoğan’s anti-West rhetoric, Carle does not foresee a strongly anti-Western Turkish foreign policy; Turkey is no ally of Russia or Iran, and is likely to move closer to its US and European partners to counterbalance its regional rivals. Whether Erdoğan, who holds heterodox economic views, will be able to cooperate with the West on the economic front remains to be seen.

Whatever happens going forward, it is clear that Turkey, like other middle powers across the world, will continue to chart out an increasingly assertive and independent foreign policy.

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

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

The post FO° Exclusive: Turkey’s Erdoğan Is Now Sultan appeared first on Fair Observer.

Ironically, this order does not have much order. A term in vogue at the Pentagon applies. This term refers to a volatile, complex, uncertain and ambiguous (VUCA) world. The rules-based order that the US created after World War II stands weakened. Most states are operating in a world of shifting allegiances, maximizing their national interest in a quid pro quo basis.

Two blocs have emerged, one led by the US and the other by China. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is an economic giant. Its per capita income may be much lower than the US but the size of its population gives it heft. In many areas of technology, China is now a world leader. Nations of the Global South such as Brazil, Kenya and Saudi Arabia are now making advantageous deals with both blocs.

Geopolitics Matters

Sir Halford John Mackinder, the father of geopolitics and geostrategy, offers a good model to look at the current situation. He posited that the Eurasian landmass from Brest to Vladivostok is one fundamental entity. This generally has a dominant power, which is the continental power. France, Germany and Russia have been this power. Today, this continental power is China, which calls itself the Middle Kingdom.

Historically, the littoral states such as the UK, the Baltics and even Italy allied against the continental hegemon. Now, littoral states such as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are allying with the US, which is on a different landmass, to counter China. That is why Taiwanese and South Korean leaders have been visiting the US. It is precisely for this reason that The Philippines conducted its largest ever military exercises with the US.

However, Mackinder’s explanation is not complete. Economics is important too. France constructs nuclear power stations and top quality Airbus planes. French luxury goods such as Chanel and Christian Dior are still world leaders. The biggest demand for all things French lie in China. Therefore, French President Emmanuel Macron showed up to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. 

Economics Matters Too

Macron and, before him, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz showed up to meet Xi for the same reason. Both of them want to maintain good relations with China. This relationship guarantees thousands of jobs. As leaders responsible for their economies, they have to make sure that a Xi-led China continues to be a reliable export market. Unlike the US, neither France nor Germany have large enough domestic markets. They need China today in a way the US does not. Therefore, they are not entirely aligned with the US on China.

The same is true for Brazil. In 2021, China accounted for 31.3% of Brazil’s exports. The US came a distant second and accounted for 11.2% of Brazilian exports. Brazilian soybeans, iron ore and oil now feed the Chinese industrial machine, which has an insatiable appetite for commodities. At a time of economic trouble, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has no option but to visit China and cultivate relations with Xi.

Even the US now depends on Chinese imports. A rupture in US-China trade relations would push the cost of far too many products up in Walmart and on Amazon. So, we now live in an inextricably intertwined world.

Yet it is important to remember that the world has always been interconnected. The reason the US exists is because the Turks disrupted Europe’s trade with the East. The quest for silk and spices led Europeans to the Americas. Once they discovered silver, this underpinned the global economy. Spain and Portugal became global powers. The UK and France followed.

Few know that a third of the silver from Latin America ended up in China. It fueled trade and then inflation. The 1580 Single Whip Law, which instituted payment of all taxes and tributes in silver, led to the fall of the Ming Dynasty.

Yet China’s trade surplus continued until the UK started exporting opium to the Middle Kingdom. The British monetized its colony in India by growing opium there and exporting it to China, causing starvation for brown people and addiction for yellow people. Naturally, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Ireland only won its independence in the 20th century and Northern Ireland is still a part of the UK) made a handsome profit and improved its balance of payments as a result.

However, this phenomenon is a historical aberration. China has been the dominant global economy for centuries. The US is a relatively new phenomenon. The global domination of the US is even newer. As the world reverts to its historical mean, the great balancing game has kicked off in right earnest.

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

The post FO° Exclusive: The Great Balancing Game in the New World Order appeared first on Fair Observer.

A 21-year-old named US National Guard soldier Jack Texeira was responsible for the leak. The question arises: why was such a young soldier in possession of such sensitive information?

The US government suffers from elephantiasis. The security apparatus has become too big. Too many people know that they should not. Many of them are contractors. Some of them are people in junior positions without the maturity or judgment to handle sensitive information. The need to know principle has been thrown out of the window. There is now a systemic problem in the US intelligence establishment.

The Texeira case is a farce. Sadly, it is a serious farce. Texeira released the documents on a social media site called Discord to impress his computer gaming buddies. In intelligence circles, MICE is an acronym used to summarize motivations for people lured to commit treason. MICE stands for money, ideology, compromise and ego. In Texeira’s case, his juvenile ego seems to be at blame.

These leaks create a problem. Everyone spies on everyone else. It is useful for the US to know what the South Koreans are saying to the Japanese. It is useful for Russia to know that China is discussing with the US. However, when revelations of spying come out, protests inevitably follow and so does a cooling off period. Texeira’s leaks have put South Korea in an awkward position.

The leaks will lead to a brief chill in US relations with South Korea and other allies. After a while, things will go back to normal. Regular spying business will resume. The more important fallout of Texeira’s leaks is that foreign intelligence sources will figure out who is leaking information to the US. In some countries, US sources will die.

The US national security establishment now uses thousands of contractors. The Intelligence Community (IC) employs over 45,000 of them and the Department of Defense a number north of a whopping 561,000. The Top Secret security clearance is now handed out to too many people, a ridiculous 1.2 million non-career intelligence officers. This means that leaks are inevitable and US national security is under threat.

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

The post FO° Exclusive: The Latest 2023 US Intelligence Leak Is Dangerous appeared first on Fair Observer.