Handcuffing an approaching leader? Or perhaps worsening his position, perhaps? This was once unthinkable, but is the kind of spitefulness one expects from this administration. Washington: It’s apparently acceptable that the Biden administration is wrapping up its international policy with another ambiguous statement.
Russia’s use of the Oreshnik Intermediate Range Ballistic missile on a defense manufacturing facility in Dnipro ( previously Dnipropetrovsk ) has stung the Ukrainians, NATO, and the United States.  , The Russians say the weapon was fast, which it was, but that is just a tiny part of the story.  , Use of the weapon has serious implications for ]… ]
Asia Times source William Henry Overholt, an East Asia professional, lender, research director and policy consultant, has died at 79, his household reported. His last post was at Harvard’s Kennedy School, where he was a freshman research professor. Bill Overholt wrote a prophetic book, The Rise of China, at a time when the regular intelligence ]…]
A senior US naval commander has warned that robots may not be sufficient to end a potential conflict with China while the US looks to build out its Pacific fleet.
US Indo-Pacific Command ( INDOPACOM), the commander of Admiral Sam Paparo, recently stated in a presentation to the Brookings Institution that despite drones being useful in tight spaces, US forces will still need air and sea superiority in comparison to China.
He pointed out that little robots, though effective in areas like the Taiwan Strait, require considerable assistance from foundations such as Okinawa, Japan, which is 436 nautical miles ahead.
Paparo criticized the exaggerated contrast between Ukraine’s use of robots against Russia and a possible conflict with China over Taiwan, noting that China’s military features, including 2, 100 soldiers and three plane ships, far exceed those of Russia.
Despite advancements in autonomous technology, Paparo emphasized that human decision-making is still essential in conflict situations. The US Department of Defense’s ( DOD ) Replicator initiative aims to deploy thousands of unmanned platforms, underscoring the value of a comprehensive military strategy and readiness.
Unmanned surface vessels ( USV ) in naval operations have previously been discussed in detail by Asia Times.
USVs provide strategic advantages and essential risks, transforming the nature of modern naval war. Due to their low cost-effectiveness, cash-strapped or smaller warships can create flocks of these robots that overwhelm more sophisticated adversaries with sheer numbers.
The US Navy is not only modest and cash-strapped, but it is facing significant obstacles to expanding its maritime manufacturing capacity. China now has the country’s largest navy in ships numbers. The US DOD’s 2023 China Military Power Report mentions that the Army Navy ( PLA-N) has 370 boats and boats, with over 140 floor soldiers.
According to reports from Asia Times, US marine shipping is confronted by China’s rapid marine expansion, which is a result of deeper shipbuilding and industrial capacity issues. China’s 13 marine factories underscore this gap, each outpacing the combined production of all seven US marine shipyards.
While the US grapples with resources cuts, skilled labour shortages and governmental constraints, China has leveraged civil-military fusion to increase productivity, combine cutting-edge human technologies and sustain cost efficiency.
Given that maritime warfare’s outcomes are frequently determined by fleet size, China’s numerical advantage may outweigh the US’s quantitative advantage. Additionally, the US Navy’s rely on cheap, high-capability ships like airplane carriers raises concerns about risk to China’s increasingly complex missile arsenal, including fast systems.
While USVs cannot totally replace conventional warships, they may do complex, unpredictable maneuvers, escape detection with small profiles and achieve powerful strikes on high-value targets. This technology is crucial for asymmetrical war because it strengthens smaller forces ‘ ability to defeat larger, more sophisticated fleets.
Nonetheless, their potential as a “wonder weapons” is tempered by major limitations. For one, the terrible sea environment often accelerates the degeneration of their techniques, and as they grow more intelligent, they become attractive targets for cyberattacks.
Communication vulnerabilities, such as reliance on external antennas and encryption keys, expose USVs to jamming and interception. Supply chain dependencies, notably for advanced microchips, further complicate their deployment.
These limitations suggest that USVs should complement other defensive measures, like naval mines and anti-ship missiles, rather than serve as standalone solutions.
USVs may be unable to sustain operations in prolonged, large-scale conflicts, where traditional warships ‘ endurance and magazine depth are vital in defeating enemy drone and missile attacks.
In a piece for Warrior Maven earlier this month, Kris Osborn cited Carrier Strike Group-2 commander Rear Admiral Javon” Hak” Hakimsadeh’s emphasis on the crucial role of “magazine depth” in preventing drone swarm attacks on US ships in the Red Sea.
Hakimsadeh argued that the operation’s effectiveness depends in large part on maintaining ongoing engagements with large numbers of drones. As a result of US Navy warships ‘ successful intercepts of numerous Houthi anti-ship cruise missiles and drones using a combination of interceptors, deck-mounted guns, and air-to-air missiles, the recent deployment in the Red Sea underscored the need for adequate ammunition reserves.
Significant technical difficulties are also present when coordinating large USV fleets in real-time during contested operations.
Jingchen Wang and other authors make reference to the difficult task of coordinating large USV fleets in a peer-reviewed Journal of Marine Science and Engineering article from February 2024, especially when ensuring that they move together safely and without colliding.
Wang and others suggest a dual-layered control system: one system plans the fleet’s movement while the other manages the real-time actions of each vehicle. They point out, however, that the most difficult part is finding a balance between avoiding obstacles and other vehicles.
The authors claim that the system uses a more flexible and effective method than older ones to calculate safe distances based on the speed and direction of each USV in order to prevent crashes.
Additionally, real-time adjustments and constant communication between vehicles are required, which becomes more challenging as the fleet expands.
Wang and others claim that the system has a duty to prioritize safety over following formation plans. They point out that managing a large fleet is challenging because it must constantly balance the need for quick calculations with safety.
LUA-T becomes crucial to ensuring their effective use in naval operations as Paparo warned against relying solely on unmanned systems to maintain an edge over China.
However, Jaquelyn Banas and other authors make reference to improved collision avoidance systems for shipboard operations in a conference paper from October 2020. Effective MUM-T requires more autonomy to reduce crew workload, robust designs to withstand saltwater and turbulence, and improved collision avoidance systems for shipboard operations.
Banas and others make the point that the current lack of unmanned capabilities is frequently compounded by the lack of line-of-sight data links and endurance. For safe and effective maritime MUM-T operations, according to them, sophisticated control interfaces, task-based autonomy, and reliable communication systems like Link 16 are essential.
Russia’s use of conventional-armed multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle ( MIRV ) -equipped intermediate ballistic missile ( IRBM ) in Ukraine signals a significant escalation, putting NATO on edge and raising fears of nuclear brinkmanship.
Russia launched a previously unheard ballistic missile strike on Dnipro, Ukraine, according to The War Zone. The projectile was initially identified as an intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) launched from the Astrakhan region by the Ukrainian Air Force ( UAF ), but US and Western officials later confirmed it to be an intermediate-range ballistic missile ( IRBM ).
According to the War Zone statement, the missile, which was fitted with MIRVs, struck the Russian military’s Pivdenmash factory.
Following recent US and allied choices that allowed Ukraine to launch long-range missiles against Russia, Moscow was advised to deploy recently unnecessitated weapons.
According to the War Zone record, Volodymyr Zelensky, president of Ukraine, and other officials are looking into the rocket’s specifics, despite conflicting reports about its kind. Given that Ukraine lacks the sophisticated defense systems required to intercept for missiles, the mention of the attack highlights the conflict’s growing intensity and Russia’s proper messaging.
The Russian nuclear missile, the Oreshnik, is a derivation of the RS-26 Rubezh nuclear missile, according to The War Zone. The report says Russia developed the RS-26 in 2008 as a solid-fueled, road-mobile system designed to operate within the constraints of the now-defunct Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces ( INF ) Treaty. It boasts a range of 3, 000 to 5, 500 meters.
The difference between IRBMs and ICBMs is clarified by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. An IRBM has a range of 3, 000 to 5, 500 meters, while an ICBM has a collection beyond 5, 500 meters. Opposed to UAF claims, this explanation makes the Oreshnik an IRBM, hardly an ICBM.
Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, confirmed the start of the Oreshnik IRBM, according to Politico. The US Department of Defense ( DOD ) also confirmed the launch, according to Polititico, adding that Russia had notified the US via channels to reduce nuclear risk prior to the attack.
Stephen Bryen argues that the UAF’s say that the Oreshnik IRBM strike was an ICBM attack is propaganda by Ukraine, leading to NATO intervention on its part.
Former US assistant undersecretary of security Bryen points out that the missile’s claim that it was an ICBM was not an IRBM was refuted by UAF claims that it was an ICBM, not an IRBM, as well as the lack of dish detection or defensive responses.
Using conventional-tipped MIRV-armed IRBMs or ICBMs poses major technical problems. Steve Andreasen mentions accuracy in an article published by the Arms Control Association (ACA ). For successful strikes with regular warheads, sophisticated guidance and targeting techniques must be adapted from tactical munitions.
Andreasen says knowledge is another obstacle, as identifying and tracking high-value, time-sensitive targets remains challenging. He adds that the issue of targeting mobility gets even more complicated because smart goals can evade attacks while pursuing a missile’s strike range, necessitates yet greater accuracy and intelligence. He mentions that swift decision-making is required without putting up the possibility of mistaken nuclear launches.
Andreasen also points out that having IRBMs or ICBMs can be expensive for such arms for anything less than a radioactive attack.
Additionally, goals may not be able to determine whether an incoming missile has a conventional or nuclear load depending on how futuristic IRBMs or ICBMs are designed. They only have a few days to choose their next move, regardless of the circumstance, because of this confusion.
A hostile strike may occur before the weapon reaches its goal, leaving the defending part aware of the nature of the weapon, known as “launch on warning.”
The RS-26 and Oreshnik may have a “hot swappable” weapon part, enabling it to be readily adapted for regular or atomic use. Russia’s main weapon of deterrence is ambiguity and uncertainty, particularly in relation to short-range ballistic missiles ( SRBMs) like the Iskander.
Russia’s Oreshnik strike highlights its approach to nuclear confusion, which has stifled European support for Ukraine due to concerns about nuclear escalation, which could lead to a nuclear warhead attack in the future.
In a 2019 Center for Strategic and International Studies ( CSIS ) report, Maggie Tennis mentions that Russia’s nuclear strategy leverages ambiguity as a deterrence measure, focusing on dual-capable systems that blur the lines between conventional and nuclear capabilities.
Tennis notes that arms like the Kalibr boat weapon, Iskander SRBM, and Kh-101 air-launched weapons can take standard or nuclear weapons. This duality, in tennis ‘ opinion, makes it more difficult for opponents to determine a potential strike’s nature, increasing the possibility of misunderstanding during crises.
She says Soviet military exercises, typically featuring dual-capable devices, more muddy the waters, leaving observers uncertain about the purpose and potential for nuclear increase. She adds that using such impenetrable doctrines and systems increases the risk of “entanglement” in which misinterpreted standard conflicts could turn into nuclear weapons.
While Tennis points out that Russia’s intentional ambiguity, rooted in Soviet-era strategic deception ( maskirovka ), aims to confuse adversaries and maximize flexibility, this approach may undermine strategic stability, as it fuels worst-case scenario planning by the US and NATO.
In line with tennis ‘ ideas, Simon Saradzhyan makes the point that Russia’s 2024 version, which has just been released, has significantly altered its nuclear philosophy, widening the parameters under which it may use nuclear weapons.
According to Saradzhyan, the modified theory removes the phrase “exclusively” from its definition of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, indicating a potential shift to a more confrontational position. He claims that it expands the arguments for nuclear use to include threats to Belarus ‘ and Russia’s territorial integrity.
He mentions that the revised doctrine also raises the number of major military risks from six to ten, raising concerns about the expansion of military alliances and attempts to remove Russian territory.
Saradzhyan emphasizes that the file specifically includes situations involving Russian-led nuclear attacks and reliable information about large-scale air- or space-based attack systems.
These changes, according to Saradzhyan, lower the bar for nuclear implementation, which could lead to an increase in hostilities with the West. He contends that the theory serves as a proper warning to adversaries, but that its wider rhetoric may be more effective as a propaganda tool than as a martial strategy, underscoring Russia’s desire to counteract perceived invaders and strengthen its geopolitical position.
The government of Texas has mandated that Texas ‘ state cash stop funding Chinese investments and issue warnings to all state companies to protect themselves from potential attacks and intrusions from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).  ,
Texas ‘ governor since 2015, Republican lawmaker Greg Abbott, who has been in office since 2015, has issued three executive orders and a letter to the governors of both Texas and Texas, inviting them to cut ties with China.  ,
Two days after Republican Donald Trump won the November 5 presidential election, his enquiries came in. As part of Trump’s massive illegal immigrant imprisonment program, Abbott offered 1, 402 acres of land along the US-Mexico frontier near Rio Grande City to build infrastructure along with it.
In recent days, Abbott has issued:
On November 18, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Houston warned Texans that the PRC perhaps be harassing and pursuing Chinese dissidents who oppose the CCP in Texas.
According to Abbott,” The CCP has engaged in a global harassment campaign against Chinese rebels in efforts to violently transfer them to China.” More than 250, 000 people of Chinese origin who legitimately reside in Texas are subject to abuse and force from the CCP or its terrible intermediaries.
To detain and return suspected financial crime suspects, the Chinese government launched a covert world procedure known as Operation Fox Hunt in 2014. However, the procedure was apparently used to jail and harass , social dissidents , around the globe.
In July 2020, the Trump presidency ordered China to “cease all businesses and occasions” at its embassy in Houston, Texas within 72 hours.  ,
The State Department claimed at the time that China had been conducting extensive improper eavesdropping and control operations for years and that those pursuits had significantly increased in recent years.
In retaliation, China ordered the US Consulate in Chengdu, Sichuan state to continue activities.
Abbott stated on November 20 that he had given the Texas Division of Emergency Management ( TDEM) and the Public Utility Commission of Texas ( PUC) instructions to prepare for potential threats from a hostile foreign government or their proxies.
” China has made it evident that they can and will target and assault America’s important infrastructure”, Abbott said in a press release. ” Just this past year, a hostile Chinese state professional targeted America’s contacts, power, travel, water and wastewater techniques, threatening our national protection”.
He claimed in an interview with Fox News that the Biden administration is unaware of the CCP’s challenges to America’s protection.  ,
In September,” Salt Typhoon,” a group of Chinese hackers connected to the Chinese government, reportedly breached the network of a number of US broadband services, including AT&, T, Verizon, and Lumen Technologies, according to The Wall Street Journal’s October 5 report.
A joint venture called Shanghai Symphony Telecommunications ( SST ) was established in December 2000 between Texas-based AT&, T, China Telecom Corp, and a government-owned business. In 2017, AT&, T and China Telecom agreed to launch new services such as the Internet-of-Things ( IoT ) and big data via SST.  ,
Texas is the best oil and gas state in the US, producing 42 % of crude oil and 27 % of marketed natural oil in 2022, according to its government’s website. It has 32 petroleum refineries, which are the most of any state, and process more than 5.9 million barrels of crude oil per day ( 32 % of the US refining capacity ).
If Texas, a powerhouse of the US, were to experience energy grid paralysis caused by Chinese cyberattacks, Abbott claimed it would be a catastrophe.
The Houston-based Exxon Mobil Corp, a supplier of liquified natural gas ( LNG ), chemicals and lubricants, has grown its China businesses through ExxonMobil ( China ) Investment Co Ltd in Shanghai since the late 1970s.
Halliburton, a Houston-based fuel services company, has been providing services in China since 1984. In 2014, it signed an agreement with Petrotech ( Xinjiang ) Engineering Co Ltd, an affiliate of the Beijing-based SPT Energy Group Inc, to establish a , joint venture , focused on hydraulic fracturing and production enhancement services in Xinjiang.
The Texas state has not yet urged private companies to keep China. Chinese observers also do n’t think these businesses will shut down their profitable businesses in China.  ,
Abbott is presumably doing what Trump wants by preventing US opportunities in China, according to a journalist from Guangdong. He said Texas Instruments, a Dallas-based silicon manufacturer, may then feel the heat.  ,
According to reports in May 2022, Texas Instruments ‘ computer (MCU) research and development staff was disbanded in China. The business emphasized that there had not been any cuts.
Abbott mandated the sale of state cash ‘ assets in China and Hong Kong on November 21. He said he had told the University of Texas/Texas A&, M Investment Management Company ( UTIMCO ), which manages nearly US$ 80 billion, to divest from China earlier this year.
At the end of August 2024, the Texas-based Teacher Retirement System ( TRS ) reported its annual report to have$ 111.5 % under management. It has about$ 1.4 billion worth of Tencent Holdings shares worth$ 385 million, including$ 1.4 billion in Chinese and Hong Kong dollar assets.  ,
Chinese analysts speculated that Abbott’s desire to sell Chinese stocks may be to blame for the decline in the Hang Seng Index and Shanghai Composite Index, which both fell 1.9 % and 3.1 %, respectively, on November 22.
The US Federal Retirement Terror Investment Board ( FRTIB ) announced in November 2023 that it had decided to forego using Hong Kong-listed shares in its international fund benchmark indexes.
Future Union, a non-partisan trade organization, said last December that 74 US public pensions, including the TXRS, have allocated more than$ 70 billion of funds to companies in China and Hong Kong.
The Asia Times has Yong Jian as a contribution. He is a Chinese columnist who specializes in Chinese technologies, economy and politics.  ,
Read more: China opens a “bathing center” port in Peru to ally itself with Trump in a trade dispute.
Read more about China’s analysis of the effects of its regaining the position of most popular state.
Read: US income bank’s exit may tremble Hong Kong markets
Read: Beijing: With Huawei restrictions, US pushes’ decoupling’
America’s companies, including defence, contracted tens of thousands of key elements to China during the past 20 times. US manufacturers do n’t produce capacitors, accumulators, pumps, compressors, switching equipment and other essential equipment for US electrical utilities.
When produced in large quantities, none of these are expensive or difficult to make. However, it may cost a lot to rebuild business ability for a wide range of crucial inputs. America is vulnerable to Chinese retribution in the event of a business battle because of its significant dependence on Chinese exports.
The US Congress Select Committee on China wants to remove China’s Most Popular Nation buying standing, which could lead to levies of 100 %, while President-elect Donald Trump has proposed 60 % tariffs on Chinese imports.
China’s exports to the US peaked at over 10 % of its GDP ( in US dollars ) in 2005, but have fallen to just over 2 % of GDP today. If business relations with the US tear, which side did incur more? It’s difficult to reckon with all the elements, but the United States well might also come up worse.
The Great Re-Shoring charade, April 6, 2023, was the first study to show that China had routed a significant portion of its export to the US via next places.
The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Bank for International Settlements, and Senator Marco Rubio‘s business have since released encouraging data. Vietnam and Mexico currently export 25 % of their GDP to the US. As noted, China exports little over 2 %.
America’s failing to scale up production of munitions for Ukraine should be a reminder to politicians. In February 2024, the US produced only 30, 000 155mm shell a quarter, or three days of Russian use. The Pentagon says it hopes to increase this amount to 70, 000, or a year’s fair, by early 2025.
The United States ca n’t gear up to produce artillery shells, a century-old technology. By ten or ten, the artillery tank barrier is one hundred times the number of ways to visualize the effects of specific Chinese trade bans.
Some experts have expressed worry about America’s exports of medicine from China, particularly medicines. A trade war in healthcare is doubtful, though, because China is also a big supplier of British medicine, for example cancer medicines.
The Chinese may have stopped producing rare earth in the US, as well as its new trade licensing laws for the minerals used in semiconductors, such as gallium, tungsten, and graphite. A careful threshold of important industrial components that targets fragile industries would be more worrying.
Offer chains for critical system are severe and self-inflicted, according to the author. The US and its supporters have allowed themselves to become captive to Chinese cartels that control creation of electronic parts, high-powered magnetism, printed circuit boards, computers, drones, rare world metals, wind turbines, solar cells, cellular phones and lithium batteries … In fact, nearly every aspect of the technology-based digital smart grid is dependent on Chinese-made components”, Brien Sheahan, a former major US regulatory standard, wrote in April 2023.
Output has also been outsourced to China by the US defence sector. Greg Hayes, the CEO of Raytheon, stated in an interview with the Financial Times on June 19 that coupling is difficult because his company has” many thousand suppliers in China.” We may de-risk but no decouple”, adding that he believed this to be the situation” for everyone” in US production.
Hayes added,” Think about the$ 500bn of trade that goes from China to the US every year. More than 95 percent of unusual world materials or metal come from, or are processed in, China. There is no option. It may take us some, many years to regain that capacity, whether internally or in other helpful nations, if we had to leave China.
Raytheon makes Tomahawk cruise weapons, Maverick air-to-surface weapons, Javelin anti-tank weapons and other cornerstones of the American army.
US orders for manufacturing equipment have n’t increased in 20 years, according to the Producer Price Index for private capital equipment, which is adjusted for inflation. The ten years that followed the 2008 crisis, which saw a quick recovery, have stagnated.
Additionally, there are serious shortages of experienced manufacturing workers in the US. When manufacturing exercise (using the Federal Reserve’s index ) peaked in 2007, just 85, 000 stock work went empty. Now there are 500, 000 empty manufacturer jobs. The shortage of qualified workers, according to manufacturers and their industry associations, is the main obstacle to their work.
To start up a generation line, you need tradesmen. The United States has merely 270, 000 tradesmen, compared to 470, 000 in 2000.
The issue may be solved by wiggle production, which uses highly automated production and system regulates. However, the United States is still developing. America has just 285 industrial robots installed per 10, 000 staff, compared to 392 in China and 1, 012 in South Korea.
The United States could fund essential production with crash training programs for business workers, employ the Defense Department budget to fund these issues, and use all available resources for American industry to address these issues. But a quarter-century of industrial outsourcing, workforce shrinkage and underinvestment in capital equipment ca n’t be undone in a matter of weeks or months.
Following David P Goldman on X at @davidpgoldman
Ever since the October 7, 2023, Hamas extremist attack on Israel, the Albanese government has consistently said Australia respects Israel’s right to defend itself, but how it does so things.
These phrases, in the eyes of an intercontinental attorney, are the equivalent of a solicitor who can use them to defend one’s right to self-defense while upholding international humanitarian law. In consequence, remaining compliant with the laws of war.
Australia and other like-minded nations are now faced with a problem as the International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and past Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
In July, Australia, Canada and New Zealand issued a joint declaration that said, in part:
Israel must take into account the problems of the global community. International humanitarian law mandates the safety of citizens, which is of paramount importance. Palestinians must not be forced to pay for Hamas’s defeat.
Canada, a number of European nations, and others have made it clear they will assault Netanyahu if he enters their countries since the arrest warrants were issued last year. Did New Zealand and Australia soon follow suit?
The propriety of Israel’s activities in Gaza and its effects on the Israeli population have become more important in recent years.
This was first noted by South Africa’s claim that Israel was to blame for the massacre of the people of Gaza in a late December event before the International Court of Justice ( ICJ) brought this up.
In July, the ICJ issued a independent expert view arguing that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories violated international laws and called for its endangerance.
The International Criminal Court ( ICC ) then issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for their alleged roles in the Gaza war’s prosecution, which they claimed were responsible for.
The ICC’s attorney, Karim Khan, had also been seeking arrest warrants for three Hamas officials. Two have been killed in recent months, while the second, Mohammed Al-Masri, more commonly known as Mohammed Deif, is even believed to be dead. He was also the subject of an additional permit issued by the ICC.
The control of the ICC over the Gaza war, however, is never clear-cut because Israel is certainly a celebration to the Rome Statute. The court was established by this convention and established its authority to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Palestine’s accession to the 2015 Israel and Gaza statutes as a basis for the judge’s authority in these matters. Because Palestine is not a state that is recognized internationally, there was a lot of legitimate, political, and political debate surrounding that.
Additionally, the Rome Statute grants control to the court over alleged crimes committed in nations that are not ICC members. The UN Security Council you send these steps to the judge for research, though given the divide between the United States, Russia and China on the Security Council, it’s doubtful they’d get agreement on Israel.
Two additional important legal issues that declares will likely consider when deciding how to answer had been raised by the ICC’s arrest warrants.
First, the ICC was designed as a” court of last resort” in relation to allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
This implies that regional war crimes investigations and trials are treated with respect. If Israel launches its unique inquiries, there is a chance that the arrest warrants for Gallant and Netanyahu may be revoked.
An interior company oversees the Israeli military’s efforts to look into alleged breaches of international code of conduct. Human rights organizations have, however, criticized the military for being lenient with its own warriors and for lacking clarity. And there is no proof that Jewish social officials acted in a wartime manner.
The second problem is that the international law recognizes the concept of “head of state immunity,” which states that a nation’s leaders are exempt from arrest for alleged acts.
This process, however, does not qualify under the Rome Statute. And because Netanyahu does not participate in the ICC, typical worldwide law does not apply to him.
It is extremely up for debate whether this exemption applies to specific international crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity.
This was put to the test in the late 1990s when Chile’s dictator Augusto Pinochet was detained in the UK following an arrest warrant issued by a Hispanic prosecutor for alleged abuse committed against Spanish residents there. As a previous head of state, Pinochet argued for resistance. Although he was not extradited to a trial, American courts rejected his claim.
European nations have not given much weight to this idea since the ICC has arrested Vladimir Putin for his deeds in the Ukraine conflict.
While the new emphasis has been on the ICC’s activities, the Judge has also been reviewing the propriety of Israel’s do in Gaza.
The ICJ concentrates on the responsibility of states for violating international law, while the ICC is a legal judge that seeks to keep people responsible for alleged acts.
Since January, the ICJ has heard South Africa’s event against Israel four times in a row. Based on what the court deems to be a “plausible” circumstance of murder, three pieces of provisional measures against Israel have been issued.
This circumstance, however, remains in the early stages and has many years to work. To prove conclusively that Israel has committed murder, there is a really high legal table. Proof of murderous purpose will be much more compelling.
In order to maintain Israel and its officials accountable for their actions, international law has become more crucial in light of these legal processes.
And this, in move, has placed Australia, New Zealand and like-minded states that have previously been powerful friends and supporters of Israel in a diplomatic and political issue.
Australia supports the rules-based, global order established after the Second World War, which has a strong historical foundation and strong bipartisan support. This global order’s foundation is served by the ICC and ICJ. A judge from Australia serves on the Judge, and he has vehemently supported Putin’s arrest over Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
As a thick power, Australia’s international pursuits are deeply embedded in this global order. Without backing these techniques and their outcomes, Australia runs the risk of further destabilizing the global order, despite how difficult it has been for them to see Israel and its head in the international legal light.
Australian National University professor of international rules Donald Rothwell
The Conversation has republished this post under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.
Donald Trump’s and his Republican Party’s overwhelming success in the US election on November 5 certainly signals a significant shift in the world’s role, at least for the next four decades but also likely for many more.
Trump’s presidency in 2017 and 2018 cannot be characterized as being inconsistent with the standard international authority pattern of the United States. We must now accept the absurdity and the fact that Trump is defining a new standard with his partial restoration of the well-known style of American management.
However, despite what it may be, acknowledging this does not provide an immediate understanding of how the new classification of American leadership will affect the country or the earth in the wake of the 2028 presidential election or elsewhere.
Let’s set aside Trump’s and his supporters ‘ potential impact on America’s judicial system and its institutions of government, though important, on a domestic level. This will have an impact on America’s reputation as a democracy and liberal society, but it wo n’t have an impact on foreign policy unless unavoidable internal conflict arises.
We are certain that the new Trump administration will approach foreign affairs with a aggressive, transactional, and based on the guiding principle of” America First” if that phrase is truly regarded as a rule. In many respects, the management will also be unstable, as it is well known that President-elect Trump is a guy who typically changes his mind, yet quite abruptly.
But beyond that, much is sure.
Two factors lie behind this confusion. One is just the distinction between regulating and fighting. To plan is to inspire and to get recognition, to manage, as the old saying goes, is to choose. Despite any significant inconsistencies in his promises, Trump’s fighting style has a crucial quality: his determination to say something that he thinks will appeal to voters or keep him in the spotlight. When governing, decisions may be avoided.
The second reason is that besides having the largest economy in the world, America also has a lot of international financial and security concerns and exposure. Due to this truth,” America First” is much more difficult to put into practice than it might have appeared on the campaign trail. The depth and breadth of America’s global safety and business interests make this a distant possibility, despite the widespread concern that many people will turn to isolationism and detachment in the 1930s.
Look only at Elon Musk, the billionaire who backed Trump’s plan most conspicuously and who since the poll has stuck close to his part: Musk’s electronic vehicle business, Tesla, builds cars and components in factories in Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and China as well as the United States, his Starlink satellite-based internet business is world, and his SpaceX business has customers worldwide too, all depend on global supply chains for their manufacturing. ” America First” means much to him, and could even pose a threat to his companies.
The fighting and the guarantees are thus riven with contradictions. Trump’s repeated demands that allies in NATO and bilateral security alliances in Asia may add more to security wasting and military capabilities, and his declarations that he plans to implement higher tariffs on American imports from Japan, Europe, and other countries, are at odds with what is most important with international affairs. Because Europe and other countries rely on them for a lot of crucial supplies, this may make it harder for those allies to add more and raise America’s personal defense procurement costs.
Another contradiction is that Trump campaigned fervently for the idea that he may seek “peace through strength” by increasing America’s unique defense spending and confronting China in every way required, but his plans threaten to erode that really strength by eroding America’s alliances in the Indo-Pacific.
The American defense sector relies heavily on co-production with allies and partners, particularly Japan and South Korea, to meet the country’s current military needs.
Even Republican Party strategists believe that convincing neighboring nations in the area to at least stay neutral or ideally lean toward America has long been a key part of America’s China strategy. Slapping high tariffs on goods from India, Vietnam, the Philippines and other” strategic partners”, in the preferred diplomatic jargon, is hardly the best way to seduce them.
Therefore, much depends on how these contradictions are resolved and what America First actually means. Trump’s campaign pledge to “end” Russia’s war in Ukraine by negotiating a peace raises a serious issue. He will also need to consider Russia’s strategic partnership with China and its use of soldiers and munitions from North Korea. He and his national security team will need to determine how to compete with China while engaging in trade wars at the same time.
Even the most zealous of America Firsters cannot deny the significance of US military installations in Japan and Japan’s own defense development, so there may be room for compromise in the case of Japan. However, many nations that do n’t have such close ties to the US will view recent moves to join China-led alliances like the BRICS as prudent bet hedging.
There is no denying that the Trump administration will face China with the same level of brutality as the Biden team. The contradictions concern the potential effectiveness of that policy, not its direction. In exchange for Taiwan’s support and protection, the Trump administration wo n’t knowingly attempt to entice a Chinese takeover. We can anticipate Trump trying to meet with Kim again despite his previous discussions with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, whose conflict with Russia is likely to be slowed down by any attempt at personal communication.
The re-election of Donald Trump spells the end, for now, of the old form of American leadership. With the world’s largest economy and military force, and with interests all around the globe, America will still, however, remain a leader. Where and how long-term it will be possible is something we have n’t yet learned.
Formerly editor-in-chief of The Economist,  , Bill Emmott , is currently chairman of the , Japan Society of the UK, the , International Institute for Strategic Studies , and the , International Trade Institute.
The Mainichi Shimbun published an English version of an article from November 17 that was originally published in English as the original. It is republished with permission.
The name figure and her father Joseph are being played by Jewish players, so the approaching biblical film from Netflix, Mary, has received criticism on social media.
The criticisms are based on the argument that Mary and Joseph, and their son Jesus, a Jewish man born in Bethlehem, were, in fact, Palestinian. Some critics of the Netflix casting are concerned that Israeli actors portraying Palestinians as historical figures while Israeli bombs kill contemporary Palestinians.
According to director D J. Caruso, it was important for us to select Israeli actors in order to ensure authenticity while selecting the majority of our main cast members.
So, were Jesus and his parents Palestinian?
Bethlehem is now a city located in the Israeli-occupied West Bank of the Palestinian Territories, about ten kilometers south of Jerusalem. So the short answer is: yes, Jesus was a Palestinian, according to modern geopolitics at least.
One could also argue that he was n’t Jewish and was born in a political vacuum before Palestine.
Paula Fredriksen, a historian of ancient Christianity, made this point in March. She described Jesus ‘ claims as” an act of cultural and political appropriation” in the Washington Post.
According to the New Testament, Jesus was born somewhere around 4-6 BCE during the reign of Herod the Great, in Bethlehem. Bethlehem’s location was in an area then known by the Romans as Judea – the land of Judah, then occupied by the Jewish people ( the Judeans ).
The Roman historian Tacitus was the first to mention the existence of Jesus as a Judean, outside of the New Testament, in his Annales ( 115-120 CE).
According to Tacitus, the Christians were to blame for the fire that destroyed Rome in 64 CE, as the Emperor Nero had predicted. They were named, he wrote, after ( Jesus )” Christus”, who was executed by Pontius Pilate when he was governor of” Judea, the first source of the evil”.
According to the Old Testament, the 12 tribes of Israel conquered Canaan ( later to become known as Palestine, then Judea, then Palestine, and then Israel ) around 1200 BCE. In the area south of Jerusalem, the tribe of Judah made its home.
This made Jesus a Judean ( in Hebrew, a Yehudi), from which the English word” Jew” is derived. As a Judean, Jesus was part of the Jewish religious tradition, which was focused on the temple in Jerusalem, known as the second temple.
The name” Palestine” for that region also had a long history, though. It first appeared in the writings of Herodotus, a Greek historian, in the fifth century BCE.
He wrote of a “district of Syria, called Palaistinê”, between Egypt and Phoenicia, an ancient region that corresponds to modern Lebanon, with adjoining parts of modern Syria and Israel. So, the land ( or part of it ) was called” Palestine” by the Greeks before it was called” Judea” by the Romans.
The Bar Kokhba revolt, which dates from 132-135 CE, was a pivotal period in the creation of Palestine. The Jews were killed, displaced or enslaved. They did n’t start relocating to Palestine until after World War II, when Israel became a Jewish state.
The Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Roman province from” Judea” to” Palestinian Syria” in c. 138 CE. The region’s Jewish identity was removed by this name change, which implied that it was more Syrian and Greek than Jewish.
We might say that from this moment on, Jesus was a Palestinian.
His religious affiliation to the Jewish religion and his ethnicity both had changed, but his location had also. The Judean had become a Palestinian.
Back then, this mattered little. After all, Palestine was just another name for Judea.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, the boundaries of Palestine were vague and uncertain. ” Palestine” did not refer to any specific political identity, so no precise geographical determination was needed.
The crusaders preferred” the Holy Land”, or” the Kingdom of Jerusalem”. Up until the end of the first world war, Ottoman dominance over the region was overthrown, Palestine’s borders remained ambiguous until it joined the Ottoman Empire in 1516.
British and Allied forces seized Jerusalem in December 1917. The British would continue to rule Palestine until a mandated end date in 1948, and the area was already occupied by them by October 1918. In May 1948, after an estimated 750, 000 people who lived on 77.8 % of the land in then-Palestine were displaced, the modern state of Israel was declared.
Palestine’s historic geography has since come back as crucial. Prior to the establishment of the new state of Israel, Palestine would now be defined as a constrained, determined geographical space.
This new state built upon its original Judean, or Jewish identity. But with its new name, it created a new understanding of itself. A new kind of Jew, an” Israeli”, had arrived in the place formerly known as Judea.
The new Jewish” Israelis” established themselves against the previous inhabitants, the” Palestinians”. According to the Bible, they restricted the Palestinians ‘ access to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which the Israelis still believed to be the Promised Land that God had given them.
The Arabs of Palestine, for their part, began to use the term” Palestinian” to defend the nationalism of the Palestinian people and their right to an independent state.
Jesus could be both a Palestinian and a Judaean when Palestine and Judaea shared essentially the same geographical area. Back then, it did n’t matter.
He can no longer be both in a modern Middle East that is divided along binary lines ( between Jew and Arab, Israeli Jew and Palestinian Muslim or Christian ).
From all of this, Jesus is the only one who knows. However, we should be questioned about the validity and significance of such binary distinctions once we realize that Jesus is both a Jew and a Palestinian.
After all, Jews, Muslims and Christians believe we all come from one original pair of humans: Adam and Eve.
Beyond the arbitrary and impermanent divisions of people and places created by the changes and chances of history, that story leads us to a recognition of common humanity.
Philip C. Almond is emeritus professor in the history of religious thought, The University of Queensland
The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.