Bolen C (Page 10)

South Korea is currently in severe social and political upheaval as a result of President Yoon Suk Yeol’s quick declaration of martial law on December 3. His choice to install military forces onto the roads of Seoul shocked spectators both domestically and abroad, a sight not seen in decades.

However, what initially appeared to be a democratic dying end for the leader is now taking an unexpected move. Despite his extraordinary arrest on January 15 on suspicion of rebellion, the situation appears to be reversing.

Long sluggish, Yoon’s approval ratings have lately surged and surpassed their pre-martial rules numbers. After decades of division and faction fighting, the ruling People Power Party is also immediately reorganizing.

While this upsurge may prove momentary, the growing influx of pro-Yoon followers and the government’s increasing momentum are becoming harder to ignore. Multigenerational crowds are unified in their support of the chief executive and their state to uphold the constitutional attempt as a result of the city’s growing rallies.

Interviewed for Asia Times, Hwang Kyo-ahn, who was South Korea’s 44th prime minister and even served as justice secretary, shared his insight. Hwang offers a unique view on the unfolding social crisis having served as acting president during the impeachment and removal of President Park Geun-hye in 2016 and 2017.

Was President Yoon’s military law order justified?

An fundamental right bestowed on the main executive, an extraordinary power that supersedes common law, is for the disaster to be called martial law. However, one may comprehend the circumstances that led to President Yoon’s December 3 declaration of martial law.

Over the two and a half times since Yoon’s management took company, the opposition, wielding a majority in parliament, has effectively paralyzed the legislative branch. Most importantly, the de facto communist coalition, headed by the major opposition Democrat Party, has consistently obstructed the application of the president’s personal agendas.

The partnership, for example, has wielded its fiscal power for years, hiking members ‘ salaries while slashing financing for Yoon’s premier policies. They also eliminated the president’s specific activities finances, a crucial source for managing administrative operations.

Beyond economic measures, the criticism has constantly obstructed the visit of key personnel, putting pressure on them to retire even after taking office, or rejecting nominees during verification hearings. In a striking show of obstructionism, the Democrat Party has filed 29 prosecution motions against express officials, prosecutors and people until today. This is a record-breaking find unmatched by any previous leadership.

With President Yoon’s standard rights and social strategies stymied, he had no choice but to take actions. But, let there be no mistake. Yoon sought to overthrow the Constitution or any state instrument, but the order was never implemented by troops by force under the direction of the president.

Can you elaborate on the poll fraud disputes?

Another major motivation for President Yoon’s emergency martial law was to look into the automated system used by the National Election Commission and find the truth about allegations of election fraud. Conducting a thorough investigation during the peacetime is hardly possible because the percentage is an independent legal body with top judiciary members on staff. The army was then deployed to the Election Commission and related organizations to secure machines and important evidence in the context of martial law.

Election fraud claims first surfaced during the April 2020 and April 2024 public votes. Information includes faulty vote, improper seals, and vote boxes that were supposed to be sealed but were discovered open. In some towns, these irregularities and other political flaws have led to statistically unfeasible outcomes.

Through recounts that I and other candidates who were impacted negatively by the imperfect system, we were able to uncover these details. Over 1, 000 incorrect votes were found despite just 1, 900 citizens having been registered at a voting place in Incheon, for example. Min Kyung-wook, a former member of the US Parliament, tirelessly pursued this matter legally until the Supreme Court invalidated 279 erroneous votes. It did not alter the election results, yet.

A statement from the National Intelligence Service in October 2023 highlighted major flaws in the electoral roll, the vote-counting system, and the early voting system in South Korea. Unabhängig of one’s opinion on election scams, investigating an electoral program with obvious flaws may be merely common sense.

What do you think about the allegations of rebellion against President Yoon?

Subjective and objective criteria are two key concepts in criminal law. The objective condition addresses the act’s intended purpose. Without goal, punishment is not possible. The work itself is subject to the imperative necessity. If I punch a stranger, for example, that would meet the definition of an assault.

For a criminal verdict on rebellion charges, both parts may be present. In the case of President Yoon’s martial law, yet, neither was visible. There is no evidence that the leader authorized or intended for the legislature to be overthrown.

You claim the opponent’s ‘ despotism’ has never stopped. How thus?

On December 14, opposition events rammed through an prosecution movement in congress against President Yoon following a failed endeavor. He is accused of planning an insurrection through an unlawful martial law order, according to the motion, which Democratic Party lawmakers have actively supported recently.

The main opposition party is now moving to remove that claim from the senate articles, apparently in recognition of the difficulty of proving rebellion charges. Rather, they are shifting their focus to the dispute over Yoon’s says that he violated the law by declaring martial law on December 3.

By lowering the high-burden-of-proof rebellion cost, streamlined the content, allowing courts to hear fewer arguments, and reducing the number of witnesses, Yoon’s prosecution process. And specifically on this is the key opposition’s primary focus. In the end, Democratic Party politicians are determined to remove President Yoon from business as soon as possible, paving the way for opposition leader Lee Jae-myung to take the helm. For Lee, who is grappling with mounting legal problems, this situation is very appropriate.

The Democratic Party recently introduced a special counsel act to investigate Yoon for allegations of inciting North Vietnamese anger as well as for inciting insurrection. Their despotic endeavor, thus, shows no signs of abating.

I’ve long warned that assuming the role of a communist like Lee Jae-myung would bring about the demise of South Korea’s liberal democracy. We liberals must remain steadfast and fight until the last breath to accomplish this.

Continue Reading

A ceasefire between Hamas and Israel has been reached after 467 times of conflict, and it will take effect on Sunday, pending Jewish federal approval.

This deal won’t provide harmony or end the war. Ceasefires are not a cure for the conflict, trauma, dislocation, poverty and dying Israelis and Palestinians have borne before and since October 7, and will no doubt continue to bear, long before.

While this is not the end of the story, this peace does mark the start of a new book for Palestinians, especially those in Gaza, and Israelis.

The term of this peace, at least for the first step, are detailed, setting the stage for its successful application.

This peace is similar in terms of structure and content to a number of other proposals over the past month, including the 7 2 time truce reached in November 2023. Unlike that truce, however, this agreement is envisaged to last longer, having three distinct phases, each lasting 42 days ( 6 weeks ).

This arrangement, according to US President Joe Biden, “is the precise model of the package I proposed in May.”

Israel and Hamas will temporarily suspend their military activities in the first step, along with the Israeli forces moving their troops eastward, toward Israel’s Gaza border, and away from densely populated areas.

Additionally, air activity in the Gaza Strip will temporarily been suspended ( for defense and surveillance purposes ), especially once captives are freed.

This also happened during the November 2023 peace, which provided Palestinians with much-needed relief from bombing as well as assurances to Hamas that Israel is not using drones to monitor hostages, determine where hostages are being held, and determine how and where they are being held, as well as provide assurances that the country is not using drones to monitor hostages and monitor how and where they are being held, as well as how and where they are moving them.

]embedded information]

Additionally, large volumes of humanitarian aid, pleasure supplies, and energy will be permitted to enter Gaza from the moment the contract is in effect.

The energy is required for large machinery to clean and remove dust, as well as for the activity of Gaza’s power plant and sanitation systems. This will begin the long task of rebuilding the strip’s decimated infrastructure, including hospitals, clinics and bakeries ( the main food source for Gazans ).

A particular” strange deal”

Undoubtedly, the power interactions between Israel and Hamas when this contract was negotiated were very irregular. Israel has shown over the past 15 weeks that it has much better war might to Hamas.

Additionally, Israel was arguably generally disposed to dismiss Hamas ‘ only political card, which was the release of the hostages on October 7.

Because of the extreme strength imbalance, one party, ( in this case Israel ), might interpret the terms of the agreement as a kind of hurt contract.

Hamas has vehemently agreed to the terms of a peace over the past 12 months, only to have the words changed by Israel and no compromise has been reached.

Hamas has tried to alter the ceasefire’s term also. However, it has been largely ineffective in gaining Israel’s consent due to the power imbalance.

Hamas has forsaken its two major demands in order to achieve a deal: a lasting peace and the complete removal of Israeli soldiers from the Gaza Strip.

This agreement has three phases. In the first phase, Israel might exchange 33 hostages for the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners. More than 60 hostages are thought to have been rescued.

However, it is interesting that in the past, Israel has merely detained and re-arrested a large number of Palestinians who had been released under similar agreements. This kind of strangle deals also occurred during the Syrian civil war. There, they were branded as reconciliation agreements.

The Assad regime and Russia effectively imposed ceasefires on rebel-held communities after they besieged, bombarded, and starved them, sometimes for many years, after they had besieged, bombarded, and starved them. Communities had little or no bargaining power regarding the terms and implementation of these agreements because of their asymmetrical power relations with the parties to them.

What we don’t know

Indirect negotiations between the two parties will begin on the 16th day following the agreement’s entrée into force regarding its next stage. Further hostages and prisoners ‘ release as part of this new phase and the continuation of the ceasefire are anticipated.

However, if no agreement is reached for the second phase, there are no written guarantees that the ceasefire will continue after the first phase.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear that he would continue to fight Hamas after the initial phase in exchange for similar deals that had already been made.

Additionally, the ceasefire agreement specifies that Israeli troops will leave Gaza and Israel and travel eastward. Israel’s initial demands for a ceasefire with Hamas included a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.

The ceasefire terms suggest that Israeli forces will remain in a more permanent buffer zone along the border, even though it has since abandoned that requirement. Along the Netzarim Axis and in the Philadelphi Corridor, they might also be able to stay longer.

Any continuing Israeli military presence on this Palestinian land means it cannot be used for civilian purposes, including for homes or farmland, in a territory only 40 kilometers long and between five and thirteen kilometers wide. This further complicates the already densely populated Gaza Strip, as well as feigning Palestinian landslide rights there.

Additionally, we are unsure of how this ceasefire will impact Lebanon’s fragile ceasefire with Hezbollah or Israel’s calculus in the West Bank. Attacks continue to occur daily in Lebanon, with both sides accusing one another of breaking the deal. The first phase of that ceasefire agreement, lasting 60 days, is scheduled to end on January 26, 2025.

What comes next?

Although ceasefires are technically unenforceable, they are perhaps best understood as a form of contract between the two conflicting parties.

This ceasefire, at least for the first phase, has detailed terms, including maps, that the parties have taken time ( some would say too much time ) to agree on.

This makes the agreement more likely to be implemented as both sides can more easily be held to what they have agreed by external parties, including the ceasefire’s guarantors, Qatar, Egypt and the US.

]embedded information]

Vaguer terms give the parties more room to maneuver and the potential to hold the other party accountable for breaking the agreement, like the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the 2016 Cessation of Hostilities in Syria or with the Taliban in Pakistan.

The war between Hamas and Israel is, of course, not over. This ceasefire is all that marks the beginning of a new era. It’s a welcome relief and the least-worst option that humans have so far developed to put an end to the bloodshed of war.

But with more than 1, 000 Israelis and 46, 000 Palestinians dead, many more homeless, the Gaza Strip decimated and potentially millions with some sort of trauma, even if there is a halt in the violence, this is certainly not peace.

Palestinians and Israelis, if not the world, will be living with the implications of the past 467 days for many years to come.

Marika Sosnowski is postdoctoral research fellow, The University of Melbourne

This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

The new hypersonic missile test by North Korea is a harmful expansion of its military capabilities, scuttling East Asia’s stability and raising serious issues with global security.

This martial development is largely attributed to Pyongyang’s extremely strategic relationship with Russia, which was established through a high-stakes quid pro quo.

Moscow is reportedly providing Pyongyang with superior weapons technology in exchange for North Korea’s crucial military aid for Russia’s war efforts in Ukraine, giving North Korea the tools it needs to accelerate its weapon modernization program.

The effects of this relationship go far beyond the Korean Peninsula. By acquiring developed missile systems, including hypersonic weapons, North Korea is significantly enhancing its reach features, posing a direct and immediate risk to South Korea, Japan, and US troops in the region.

This military alignment poses the risk of severing decades of efforts to maintain regional stability and forcing neighbors to make drastic adjustments to the shifting power balance.

South Korea’s defense policymakers must address North Korea’s expanding military might right away. Failure to act decisively risks dragging South Korea into a new era of heightened geopolitical instability, where rogue regimes, emboldened by shared interests, pose an escalating threat to regional security and sovereignty.

Conventional posture

South Korea’s defense strategy has prioritized maintaining air dominance on the Korean Peninsula ever since the 1953 Korean War armistice. The constant acquisition of cutting-edge aircraft, the construction of strategic airbases, and unwavering allies have been key components of this strategy.

This approach has enabled South Korea to operate cutting-edge fighter jets, such as the F-35 stealth fighters, giving it a decisive technological advantage over North Korea’s outdated air force. Key airbases like Osan, Kunsan, and Daegu serve as pivotal hubs for projecting airpower.

The United States has played a critical role in enhancing South Korea’s air capabilities through joint operations, intelligence sharing, and the provision of advanced weaponry.

This air-dominance tactic has been successful in preventing North Korean aggression and enabling quick response capabilities. However, the rise of hypersonic missile threats has exposed critical vulnerabilities, necessitating urgent adjustments to South Korea’s defense framework.

Hypersonic missiles, with their unmatched speed, maneuverability and precision, pose a game-changing challenge that can quickly destabilize the balance of power.

These missiles can travel at speeds over Mach 5, significantly reducing the time it takes to detect and intercept. Their inability to follow radar and missile defenses and their unpredictable flight patterns render existing air defense networks insufficient.

Given the proximity of North Korea, hypersonic missiles can strike any location in South Korea within a few minutes, leaving minimal time for countermeasures.

This capability directly threatens South Korea’s airbases, which, due to their limited number, are highly vulnerable to saturation attacks. South Korea’s air force would be crippled if a successful strike on these crucial facilities, undermining its main defense strategy.

The successful testing of hypersonic missiles by North Korea signals a significant change in its military strategy, focusing on asymmetric capabilities to offset South Korea’s technological prowess.

Hypersonic missiles pose a more immediate and practical threat than South Korea’s defense strategy, which has largely focused on thwarting North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

Hypersonic missiles are much more likely to be used in a conflict than nuclear weapons, which are primarily used as deterrents because of their disastrous effects.

This growing threat necessitates a thorough review of South Korea’s defense priorities and a shift to tactics designed to mitigate the unique risks posed by hypersonic weapons.

New defense strategy

South Korea must urgently update its defense strategy to ensure greater resilience and adaptability in light of the unprecedented threat posed by hypersonic missiles.

Strengthening its security posture requires upgrading missile defense systems, diversifying force structures, reinforcing ground forces, leveraging cyber and space capabilities, and deepening alliances and partnerships to address this fast-evolving danger.

South Korea must prioritize the creation and deployment of advanced missile defense systems specifically designed to counter hypersonic threats as the power balance shifts on the Korean Peninsula. To improve its defensive capabilities, it should include more potent early warning systems, directed energy weapons, and integrated defense networks.

Upgraded radar and satellite systems must be a key component of this new strategy in order to enhance missile launch and booster detection. Currently, South Korea relies on traditional systems such as THAAD ( Terminal High Altitude Area Defense ) and KAMD ( Korea Air and Missile Defense ).

While effective against conventional ballistic missiles, these systems may fall short against hypersonic missiles, which travel at lower altitudes, exceed Mach 5 speedsand maneuver unpredictably, making them difficult to track with conventional radar.

At present, South Korea’s early warning network includes the Green Pine radar, AN/TPY-2 radar ( part of THAAD), and Sejong the Great-class Aegis destroyers. The Green Pine Block-C radar can detect ballistic missiles at ranges up to 800 kilometers, while the AN/TPY-2 radar offers detection beyond 1, 000 kilometers.

The SPY-1D radar aboard Aegis destroyers provides high-resolution tracking and interception for mid-course missile trajectories. These systems are also designed for ballistic missiles with predetermined flight paths, which may be challenging to follow due to hypersonic missiles, which change direction in flight and travel at fast speeds.

Additionally, South Korea’s boost-phase detection capabilities are insufficient for hypersonic threats, which accelerate rapidly after launch, reducing response time for interception. Additionally, these missiles ‘ unique thermal and electromagnetic signatures cannot be identified by the current radar infrastructure.

South Korea must invest in cutting-edge technologies like advanced laser and electromagnetic systems to neutralize hypersonic missiles in flight in order to close these gaps.

Strengthening coordination between ground-based and naval defense systems to create layered, real-time protection is equally critical. Without these novel adaptations, South Korea’s current defense strategy will continue to be increasingly vulnerable to hypersonic missile attacks.

South Korea’s defense strategy’s heavy reliance on a few large airbases is inherently vulnerable, necessitating a shift towards decentralized air assets, mobile launch platforms, and hardened underground facilities.

The major airbases currently supporting South Korea’s air defense include Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, housing the US 51st Fighter Wing and South Korean 19th Fighter Wing, Kunsan Air Base on the western coast with the US 8th Fighter Wing, Cheongju Air Base, a key logistics hub with F-15K fighters, Gimhae Air Base in Busan, Daegu Air Base, home to South Korea’s 11th Fighter Wing, and Seosan Air Base, operating F-35A stealth fighters.

Additionally, Camp Humphreys is the largest US military base outside of the United States, supporting air defense operations. Currently, over 70 % of South Korea’s air defense assets and manpower are concentrated in these bases. &nbsp,

Due to North Korea’s new missile capabilities, a significant risk exists from this reliance on centralized infrastructure. South Korea needs to start considering setting up smaller, dispersed airfields to reduce vulnerability, develop mobile missile and aircraft platforms for operational flexibility, and build underground facilities that can withstand advanced missile attacks in order to reduce risk.

These measures would improve survival and give a more resilient defense posture that can deal with threats effectively.

Beyond decentralizing air forces, South Korea must prioritize bolstering its ground forces in order to have a more balanced and potent defense strategy. Modernizing tanks, artillery and infantry systems, along with asymmetric warfare training, is essential to counter the new threats.

Ground forces must be equipped for urban combat, counter-insurgency, and irregular warfare to neutralize both conventional and unconventional adversaries. Establishing rapid deployment units with high mobility and flexible response capabilities across the peninsula will increase deterrence and ensure operational readiness against evolving threats.

South Korea must strengthen its advanced cyber and space capabilities in order to compete with its conventional military might in order to combat emerging threats. The Cyber Operations Command, responsible for cyber defense, must enhance both offensive and defensive measures to disrupt North Korea’s command-and-control systems.

Exploring space-based reconnaissance and secure communications using the Korea Multipurpose Satellite ( KOMPSAT ) series and the recently launched military communication satellite ANASIS-II is equally important. In the face of ever-evolving threats, strengthening these capabilities will significantly improve South Korea’s situational awareness and give it a more robust, multi-domain defense posture.

South Korea’s relationship with the US is important, but it may not be sufficient to fend off new threats. To create effective collective security mechanisms, South Korea must actively engage regional partners like Japan, Australia, and India.

To improve intelligence-sharing, technology exchange, and defense cooperation, it is necessary to engage more deeply in multilateral frameworks and strengthen ties with international organizations. Expanding these partnerships will enhance South Korea’s strategic autonomy and promote regional stability in the face of changing security challenges.

Implementation challenges

Revising South Korea’s defense strategy is urgent but faces significant obstacles, including resource constraints, shifting political priorities and widening technological gaps.

Significant investment is required to develop new technologies and modernize existing ones, which could further strain the economy. In a divided political climate, it’s equally challenging to win bipartisan support for defense reforms.

Additionally, reliance on foreign suppliers to bridge domestic technological limitations risks compromising South Korea’s strategic autonomy. Addressing these challenges demands bold leadership, a long-term vision and innovative solutions to secure a resilient and future-ready defense posture.

Failure to adapt, however, will leave South Korea dangerously exposed to evolving threats. East Asia’s security dynamics have been reshaped by the rapid development of hypersonic missile technology, with North Korea’s expanding ability to attack critical infrastructure undermining South Korea’s air superiority doctrine.

South Korea must immediately adopt a multi-dimensional defense plan that includes advanced missile defense systems, diversified force structures, enhanced ground forces, and integrated cyber and space assets.

South Korea requires a steadfast, stable, and visionary leadership to protect its interests from growing threats in light of the Korean Peninsula’s rapidly shifting power balance.

South Korea’s military and political leadership must remain focused on the changing regional dynamics and refrain from getting sucked into internal political snucks. National security must never be compromised by internal conflict or domestic political objectives.

Unwavering vigilance and proactive strategies are required to deal with the growing threats coming from across the border. South Korea should anticipate and prepare for potential difficulties rather than reacting in secret. This calls for a unified national security framework that transcends political divisions, continuous improvement of defense capabilities, and strategic foresight.

In this volatile environment, complacency is not an option. South Korea’s leaders must adopt a forward-looking security doctrine, ensuring that the nation remains prepared to counter any threat to its stability.

In order to safeguard South Korea’s future, it will be crucial to maintain a strong military posture, strengthen intelligence capabilities, and form stronger alliances with like-minded partners.

The resilience of South Korea’s national security architecture is a key factor in its future prosperity and survival. Therefore, preserving the nation’s sovereignty in the face of evolving threats must remain a non-negotiable priority.

Lakhvinder Singh is the Asia Institute in Seoul’s director of peace and security studies.

Continue Reading

Apologies to Karl Marx, but a new” threat is disturbing Europe”, and it’s not the leftist movements that frightened 19th Century “old Europe”, as Marx called it in his famous book” The Socialist Manifesto”.

In the alarming view of the country’s contemporaneous political leaders, the threatening specter comes not from a dramatic kept movement but from a burgeoning far right.

And its knight is not a figure well-known in extreme circles. Nor is the looming danger yet European. Instead, it is Elon Musk, the high-tech witch and the world’s richest person.

The South African-born Musk has launched a blitzkrieg of democratic criticism aimed at democratic institutions on the globe in person and through information on X. He appears to prefer far-right, ultra-nationalistic and racist parties, whose progress raises anxiety of a totalitarian revival in Europe.

Musk’s statements and actions may have once been seen as democratic tirades from an oddly vocal oligarch. Nevertheless, he carries a heavy calling card: close relationship with US President-elect Donald Trump, president of Europe’s most important alliance.

Musk benefited Trump’s great graces by handing him tens of millions of dollars to aid him with his election campaign and by speaking at demonstrations in support of his candidacy.

He has since from changed his mind about the upcoming Trump presidency, which will take office on January 20. Musk has been asked to find ways to cut US government spending with a salary of$ 1.

He may purchase the lower pay: he pioneered and runs Tesla, the founding electric vehicle maker, SpaceX, a company that makes rockets that launches most US satellites into space, and Starlink, which delivers online services from low-Earth orbit satellites. Additionally, he is the owner of Twitter’s social media big X.

Another American moguls—notably Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg – have gone out of their way to welcome Trump’s vote and pay homage to him by visiting Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s beautiful Florida property.

Musk, on the other hand, got behind Trump first and took up residence at a Mar-a-Lago set he apparently rents for US$ 2, 000 a day.

Does this all mean Musk’s choices in Europe reflect Trump’s wondering? During his time in the White House, Trump frequently treated allies as ingrates who refused to contribute to NATO’s efforts to defend the globe.

Musk’s information seems broader and more angry, i. e. German politics need to be recreated in line with Trump’s” America First” idea. While fully only an assistant on budget issues, Musk’s activities have immediately spread abroad.

” That should be a worrying development for US allies, particularly in Europe, where domestic politics are already vulnerable to destabilization”, wrote Parliament Magazine, a London-based chronicle of European political affairs.

Indeed, the attacks Musk has made on the most powerful allies have suffocated a continent that is already destabilized by weak governments facing economic difficulties and a nearby conflict in Ukraine.

Elections are in Germany the following month. France has elected its third prime minister in three years. How long and how much to support Ukraine against Russian aggression is a contentious issue for the European Union as a whole.

After leaving the EU in 2016, economic issues are proving to be more than the forecasts for a post-Brexit rainbow. &nbsp,

Musk’s anti-Europe campaign began last year. He has interjected himself into&nbsp, Germany’s national elections, set for next month.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz is engaged in a battle to avoid losing ground to the far-right Alternative for Deutschland ( AfD ), the Alternative for Germany, in order to avoid a center-right challenge.

In early January, he held an online interview with Alice Weidel, the AfD leader who is running largely on an anti-migration platform. ” Only the AfD can save Germany, end of story”, Musk declared during the pair’s conversation.

He also criticised Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, the leader of the British Prime Minister, for allowing children to groom them sexually ten years ago while he was a top government prosecutor. Musk called for his ouster and suggested the US ought to “liberate” Britain from its “tyrannical government”.

He kicked off his campaign by backing anti-Muslim firebrand Tommy Robinson, who is currently serving time for libel over claims that a Syrian refugee had assaulted British school girls.

Officials from all over Europe have voiced outrage, but they have all made sure to concentrate on Musk and not Trump’s. &nbsp,

Scholz urged everyone to” stay cool,” despite noting that” Musk is supporting a party like the AfD, which is right-wing extremism, preaches rapprochement with Russia and wants to weaken transatlantic relations.”

Starmer avoided his harshest criticism for opposition Conservative party members who refuted Musk’s claim that he had a sexual orientation issue, but he still called it a lie despite saving his harshest accusation against the accusation.

What are the politicians here doing to defend the truth? Stamer asked. ” Once we lose the anchor that truth matters, then we are on a very slippery slope”, he said.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who is trying to fight off a surging right-wing challenge in advance of 2027 elections, accused Musk&nbsp, of” supporting a new international reactionary movement and intervening directly in elections”.

Without mentioning his name, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez harshly criticized Musk. He said a far-right movement that “openly attacks our institutions, stirs up hatred” was being led” by the richest man on the planet”.

Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis indirectly criticized Musk for claiming that “global economic players” have become excessively involved in” shaping public opinion.”

Members of the European Parliament, meanwhile, have spoken of trying to curb X’s influence by applying anti-disinformation laws to tether its operations.

However, it will be left to Trump’s incoming cabinet to rein in Musk if Europe is hesitant to take up the matter with Trump ( possibly because it fears he may privately agree with Musk’s comments and activities ).

The secretary of state, secretary of defense, and the president’s national security advisor are typically in charge of foreign policy. If they believe that Musk is eroding American alliances and encroaching on their territory, it will be up to them to file a complaint.

But there’s no sign of that yet. No one inquired whether Musk was speaking directly to the president’s incoming administration during Senate confirmation hearings this week for two of the nominees for president: secretary of state nominee Marco Rubio, a senator from Florida who once ran for president, and defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, a former television news commentator.

Will the outspoken billionaire listen, even if Trump eventually attempts to gag Musk? ” Even without the president-elect, he has the wealth and connections to exert his will on politics worldwide”, wrote The Atlantic Magazine this week. ” Musk is here as long as he wants to be.”

China appears to be in agreement that Musk may be a force to reckon with forever. When a law enforcing a ban on its use in the US, Singaporean sources told the Wall Street Journal that China might sell TikTok, the Chinese social media giant, to Musk. The US Congress has condemned TikTok for claiming to be under the control of China’s Communist Party.

The video-sharing app’s creator, Musk, is a naturalized version of the law, and Congress has pressed for its control. Musky has met with Chinese President Xi Jinping personally and runs a large Tesla plant in China. China officially blesses him as a “friend” of China.

Friendship may not be enough, though. The report about Musk’s potential purchase was described as “pure fiction,” according to TikTok officials. Chinese Communications Ministry, meanwhile, has said it would “firmly oppose” any forced sale of TikTok’s assets.

Continue Reading

Lebanon’s congress elected a new leader on January 9 after a two-year political deadlock and 13 failed attempt. After his adversary, a Hezbollah-backed participant named Suleiman Frangieh, withdrew from the competition, Joseph Aoun passed the threshold for success in the second round of voting.

President Aoun laid out a number of commitments in his annual address to congress that would address the numerous crises that had brought Lebanon to the brink of collapse. But, delivering on these claims may be greatly challenging.

Aoun’s national victory is amazing. None of the political events supported him as their preferred presidential candidate, and he did not run for the office in public. So, how did Aoun come to win the presidency?

Rather than an established descendant of the social group, Aoun is a job soldier, serving as the captain of Lebanon’s military since 2017. The Lebanese Armed Forces ( LAF ), a comparatively uncommon instance of a force that is widely regarded as a symbol of Lebanon’s unity, is a rare example of one.

Despite the incidents of over 40 LAF men, Aoun successfully prevented the troops from being drawn into the subsequent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, and he was instrumental in coordinating the US and France’s successful 60-day peace in November.

A free network of regional and global players, including the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, served as the main supporters of Aoun’s presidential campaign. All of these countries consider Aoun to be their best chance to maintain the stiff ceasefire while even coordinating the restoration of Lebanon’s federal government.

By putting a cap on the number of political parties in place to provide financial assistance to Lebanon, they have used their influence.

Aoun’s victory adds to the Hezbollah’s weakening influence in Lebanon. In recent years, Hezbollah has experienced a number of political and economic missteps.

In the 2022 general election, Hezbollah and its allies lost their political majority. And finally, in 2024, Israel appears to have weakened Hezbollah’s defense system, including killing its chief Hassan Nasrallah and some older numbers.

The new ousting of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has even deprived Hezbollah of a powerful ally, while the team’s primary sponsor, Iran, is in no position to keep its levels of financing. Due to US-led international sanctions, which have been in place to stop Tehran’s program from developing nuclear weapons, Iran’s ability to support Hezbollah has decreased considerably.

Lebanon’s former president, Michel Aoun ( not related to Joseph Aoun ) was a longtime ally of Hezbollah. The team had hoped that by backing Frangieh’s candidacy, it may install another ally in the presidential palace. However, Frangieh withdrew and announced his support for Aoun along with a number of other politicians.

In his first speech as chairman, Aoun stated:” My mission will highlight the government’s right to control hands”. Although Aoun did not specifically mention Hezbollah, it was assumed that he would try to destroy the organization. While the majority of MPs praised Aoun’s speech, the politicians of Hezbollah sat motionless.

Off to a good start

Aoun has lofty goals for his administration. However, these goals may prove challenging to fulfill. Due to its mostly symbolic figurehead status, the presidency’s authority has tight limitations.

The position of president is mainly to service Lebanon’s power-sharing method. 18 dynasty communities are guaranteed representation in parliament thanks to this method. The leader is reserved for Maronite Christians, while the primary minister must be from the Sunni Muslim area, and the home speaker may be Shia to prevent any group from monopolizing political power.

President Aoun has pledged to reform the power-sharing state. According to research, Lebanon’s state has the Middle East’s lowest level of trust. The Palestinian power-sharing system is susceptible to disorganized political institutions, plan deadlock and regular rounds of collapse. Power-sharing officials are infamous for vote-buying and fraud.

Aoun is off to a good start. A few days after his interview, he convened congress to appoint a new prime minister, Nawaf Salam, the present mind of the International Court of Justice. Salam’s validation is a surprise because, like Aoun, he is not seen as sponsor of any of the major political parties in the country.

The absence of the customary horse-trading among the principal parties to decide on a new prime minister more underlines Hezbollah’s weakening, which was unable to oust Najib Mikati as its preferred candidate.

Hezbollah legislators accused their political competitors of trying to remove them and fragment the country in response to Salam’s visit. Salman has a long record of calling for state reform and combating widespread fraud.

Aoun and Salam today face many difficulties in delivering on the hoped-filled feeling that so many Syrian think following their meetings. They will need to appoint a authorities as soon as possible to ensure social stability and review a budget. The World Bank has ranked Lebanon among the “most significant problems shows seen globally since the middle of the 20th century” for its dire financial situation.

Supervising an extension of the current ceasefire agreement with Israel, which ends on January 25 is another urgent priority. According to the current agreement, Israeli troops must retreat to their side of the border.

Aoun and Salam form a pairing that gives real hope for a period of sustained stability and reconstruction with the support of the army, significant sections of the Lebanese population, and powerful international players.

Finding a way to create a political consensus in Lebanon will be challenging, especially if the new president and prime minister chart a course that will cause them to clash with Hezbollah.

John Nagle is a professor in sociology, Queen’s University Belfast. Drew Mikhael is a scholar at the Center for the Study of Ethnic Conflict, Queen’s University Belfast.

This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading