China-led BRICS growth raises questions about shifting world order – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Since 2009, the BRICS has grown to become a major international force at a summit in Russia. What began as a five-member party encompassing Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa is today expanding with the inclusion of five new people and eight new partner places. In the upcoming times, yet more nations may be a part of the EU.

This expansion raises important questions about whether the BRICS may challenge the dominance of traditional power like the US, UK, and European Union.

Analysts are also unsure of how united the union actually is and whether a perception of division prevents the bloc from expanding. BRICS is truly different:

  • Saudi Arabia and Iran square off as local forces in the Middle East.
  • Egypt and Ethiopia have had various wars around the Nile’s management.
  • The conflicts between China and India are also known.

However, the strength of the bloc may be in its ability to assemble this diverse group of nations that are not fully integrated. In these times of growing fragmentation, building soft international institutions may be the key to navigating global politics.

The current conflict between the US and China may be viewed from a different perspective. The conflict between the nation’s two largest economy is likely to grow in the upcoming times, influencing the current world order. China’s statement of a record US$ 1 trillion industry deficit for 2024 and its robust 5 % economic growth support the idea that its development model is an alternative to US-sponsored liberal policies that have dominated the world for the past four decades.

Democratic leaders and economic elites around the world are closely monitoring the US-China conflict, and the majority of nations attempt to maintain an adjacent strategy. Brazil and Peru are two of the main nations that have traditionally been in the US sphere of influence, but they have since been slowly orienting toward China because of the financial opportunities the Asiatic large offers. Another recently in China’s circle, such as Vietnam, are working to preserve or increase their relations with the US.

China is definitely the force that keeps the BRICS together. Without China, it wouldn’t have come into existence. All BRICS places share two essential qualities:

  • They are World South nations, not a traditional dominant group.
  • They have considerable economic ties with China, particularly through trade relationships.

Belt and road

The standard BRICS tale emphasizes globalism, assistance and fair global development. However, the organization serves mainly as a platform from which China can work its influence and power. China accomplishes this through the use of the union as a unique industry platform in line with the Belt and Road Initiative, both rhetorically and through practice.

BRICS seeks to place itself as an alternative to US ideology, promoting free trade and internationalism. This tale serves as a powerful endorsing tool for the group worldwide in times of political turmoil and the development of reactionary forces.

However, the group’s diversity also poses major difficulties as it attempts to compete with the US-led world order. It’s unlikely that the BRICS will develop into a single military force like NATO or a free trade area like ASEAN or the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement ( previously NAFTA ). The team’s variety prevents it from acquiring these features.

China is aware of this and effectively makes use of the BRICS to expand its business opportunities and global influence. It strikes a good balance between a shaky ally and a more hardened military or economic empire. Contrary to way during the Cold War era, when the two nations, the US and the Soviet Union, had well-defined spheres of influence, the current world order appears to be shaped by shed, interconnected global alliances.

Beijing’s prominence within BRICS is distinct and unlikely to change. China accounts for two-thirds of both the team’s GDP and intra-BRICS business. The state is the main business lover for Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran. China even makes major purchases in those countries. With an accumulated investment of more than USU$ 10 billion, Russia is the largest victim of Chinese foreign direct investment within the BRICS.

The majority of BRICS part states are even directly or indirectly involved in Belt and Road. It is true that the main Belt and Road jobs are not occurring in the BRICS nations but rather, rather, are occurring in Central, South, and Southeast Asia. But Egypt, Ethiopia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Iran also sponsor Belt and Road activities. Brazil has become a crucial partner because of its position as a major food vendor to China, despite not being an official Belt and Road representative.

The statistics show that expanding Brics is one of China’s overseas policy objectives. The nation uses the organization to venture both intellectual and financial influence. Donald Trump’s plan to implement trade tariffs on many places, including China, is likely to enable China to deepen this coverage. There is a strong chance that the most recent incident with Colombia, in which the US senator reportedly threatened to impose taxes if Colombia continued to protest imprisonment flights, will encourage more nations to get closer trading associations with China.

Strategic connections

Some analysts properly identify the polarization of the BRICS between those who favor non-aligned states and those who favor stability. The anti-Western team, led by Russia, favors a confrontational attitude toward the US while the non-aligned nations, such as Brazil and India, favor a more nuanced view.

Experts suggest that the US should try to influence interior BRICS debates by establishing closer ties with non-aligned nations. However, this ignores the fact that China is not only the de facto leader of the BRICS but also has a clear preference for a subtle view of the West based on multilateralism and free deal. It’s therefore unlikely that the BRICS may adopt a confrontational attitude toward the West despite what Russia may need.

China is aware that a non-confrontational strategy is the best way to draw more nations and strengthen the BRICS as a free group that supports more democratic global leadership.

Thus far, this approach appears to be working.

Gabriel Huland is a training fellow in the School of International Studies, University of Nottingham.

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

Continue Reading

Myanmar disintegrating four years after a disastrous coup – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Four years have passed since the Myanmar military staged its calamitous coup on February 1, 2021, launching a civil conflict that has ravaged the nation.

Suu Kyi and numerous other activists and opposition to the government are still imprisoned. There isn’t a simple solution in view.

However, the state is at a low. Myanmar’s health and education systems have been destroyed by the war’s economic crises. Half of the population now lives in poverty, increase the number before the revolution. The deteriorating power grid results in frequent disruptions.

According to the United Nations, more than 5, 000 civilians have been killed and 3.3 million people have been displaced by the battle. More than 27, 000 individuals have also been arrested, with reviews of physical assault and abuse rampant.

However, opposition forces – including ethnic forces and the Women’s Defence Force armies drawn from the human population – have been gathering power, with a string of victories against the regime’s troops.

Less than half of the nation is now under the rule. And the military leaders are currently dealing a lot with new tactical losses, which raises the possibility of a government shutdown similar to the Assad regime’s in Syria late last year.

There are two important things to watch as the war moves into its second time: the gains made by the criticism forces on the battlefield and the state of the country’s future.

Battlefield stress

In response to the Three Brotherhood Alliance‘s victories in the late 2023 battle, China brokered a stalemate between the junta and the empire in northern Shan condition.

When that ceasefire ended last June, the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army ( MNDAA ), one of the members of the alliance, captured the key trading town of Lashio, as well as the junta’s nearby Northeast Regional Military Command. In more than 50 years of military rule, this was the first day one of the 14 regional military orders had fallen to an opposition party.

According to the Taiwanese foreign ministry, China has recently reached a new peace agreement with the military. Although the words have not been made people, it won’t change the balance of power unless the rebels relinquish Lashio and the military order, which is doubtful.

The Arakan Army, another organization affiliated with the Three Brotherhood Alliance, took control of another command centre in Rakhine state in northern Myanmar in December. The Arakan Army today controls 14 of that country’s 17 districts.

The Arakan Army, too, said late it is opened to political discourse to possibly end the battling. However, it is also unlikely to halt its military operations for very positive words, either.

In a major study undertaken in soon 2024, the BBC assessed the coup only had full power of 21 % of Myanmar’s place. Ethnic soldiers and other opposition forces controlled 42 % of the land, while the remaining sections were contested.

In response, the coup has intensified its “scorched world” techniques in areas outside its power, including unrestrained and deliberate attacks against civilians. With dwindling reserves of eager fighters, heat energy is its main battle advantage over the criticism forces.

Economic difficulties

Myanmar’s financial situation four decades after the revolt shows, strongly, just how much has been lost. The country is currently going through a serious economic and currency crises.

The incremental benefits in economic growth, training, nutrition and health maintenance of current decades have been reversed quite quickly. Three-quarters of the community is now living a survival life.

Several young people are fleeing worldwide, joining weight organizations, or eking out unsafe lives on the margins. To make matters worse, the coup activated a long-standing but lagging recruitment rules last February to increase its shrinking forces. Refusing the document could result in five years in prison.

In response to the Arakan Army’s achievement, the junta is likewise isolating many of Rakhine State. This is causing a looming hunger and common poverty, which may affect two million people.

And earlier this month, the junta passed a sweeping new cybersecurity law in an effort to control the electronic space. Among many other crimes, people can now be imprisoned for using a virtual private network or sharing knowledge with prohibited sites.

The Asian regional bloc, chaired by Malaysia this month, has done much to resolve the issue, although it hasn’t accepted the regime’s dull plans to hold elections this yr.

The ASEAN people ‘ disputes over technique have resulted in scant development. Thailand just broke ranks by inviting the junta’s foreign minister to local discussions on border security, despite the fact that the junta already controls most of the nation’s borders.

An intensified economic slump may cause more unrest and entice yet more refugees to their neighbors. Anti-migrant rallies and large-scale arrests have already been a result of Thailand’s thousands of Myanmar workers.

Was Myanmar fall off?

Given the country’s explosive state, the junta’s hold on power might instantly decline, as the Assad regime did last year in Syria.

It’s not possible. Contrary to Syria, Myanmar’s opposition is not largely supported by significant global people. China’s support for different separatist actors fluctuates according to political preferences, while the United States and the European Union have not provided much substantive support.

In contrast, the government has been successfully running Myanmar for 60 times and is well-practised in combat strategies. The recruitment law is increasing the number of its – largely anxious – soldiers, despite continuing military defections.

Nevertheless, the fall of Syria’s oppressive government – as well as the state in Myanmar’s neighbor, Bangladesh – demonstrates how delicate long-standing governments can be, particularly when faced with persistent difficulties from armed groups and a determined people.

Similar to Syria, there are concerns that Myanmar had split along ethnic lines, especially within China. China has become a key figure in the negotiation of ceasefire deals and has sent its own private security companies there to secure its corporate investments.

Making a functional national technique that involves power-sharing among the intricate patchwork of ethnic groups will be a challenging task even if the junta is been ousted. Another difficult task is how to integrate almost a million Rohingya who have fled Bangladesh across the borders.

Nevertheless, for the first time in a long time, there is hope that opposition makes will ultimately succeed in capturing the coup. The difficult task of rebuilding a destroyed country begins next.

Adam Simpson is older lecturer in international research, University of South Australia and Nicholas Farrelly is master vice-chancellor, University of Tasmania

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Prabowo: 100 days of a presidency that delivers – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

I have known President Prabowo Subianto for many years, so I have no doubt how he has handled his second 100 days in business.

His unwavering focus, organized leadership, and determination to give results will be obvious to those who have worked with him. This person lives by the tenet that management is more about activity than words.

From his days in the military, where he served on the front ranges during some of Indonesia’s most difficult moments, to his political career, Prabowo has always been a man of his word. As president, he has carried the same sense of mission, honoring the promises he made to the Indian people.

His administration has delivered on its election promises with urgency and intent in these first 100 times. The results speak for themselves. Cultural initiatives are in place, infrastructure projects are being developed, and fiscal discipline is upheld.

The policies in place at this time are now enhancing lives and laying the groundwork for Indonesia’s transition into a modern, dynamic, and admired country.

The free college breakfast system, a crucial strategy commitment that is already being implemented across the country, is one of the most obvious example of his devotion to activity.

This program is about much more than just supplying foods. Children’s academic performance is improved by appropriate nutrition, which gives them a better chance of succeeding in life. By ensuring that children may focus on their studies, this software is an investment in Indonesia’s greatest advantage: its citizens.

Understandably, infrastructure has also been a major concern. Roads, slots and online sites are being developed at a remarkable rate, with the aim of connecting Indonesia’s large island more efficiently.

These projects are crucial for boosting trade and economic growth as well as promoting social cohesion for a nation as big and geographically diverse as Indonesia.

These are not high-profile tasks; rather, they are practical solutions to long-standing issues that aim to reduce barriers and offer businesses the tools they need to succeed.

However, the most crucial aspect of the Prabowo administration’s approach to fiscal responsibility is probably its most distinguishing quality. Indonesia has seen officials who have made promises to the horizon throughout its history without considering the long-term effects and prices of their actions.

President Prabowo’s management is quite different. Every dirhams that is spent creates true value for the people, according to his government, which is characterized by fiscal discipline.

Although the social initiatives that have been launched so far are ambitious, they have been carefully thought out to be both effective and green. This is not a federal seeking reckless democracy or short-term benefits. It is doing so mindfully with the solutions that have been given to it by the people to create a stronger future.

It is this sense of responsibility that drives the government’s fight against corruption. For too long, problem has drained Indonesia’s tools and undermined its possible. This will no longer be tolerated, according to President Prabowo, who has made it clear.

His presidency has taken first steps to improve accountability across all levels of government, increase oversight of public purchasing, and reduce improper practices. While this war will not be won immediately, these initial steps send a strong message: Indonesia’s solutions are for its citizens, not for personal enhancement.

Under President Prabowo’s management, Indonesia is even asserting itself as a major player in world matters. The nation has taken a leadership position on issues like good trade, climate change, the conflict in Ukraine, and global management measures in communities like the G20 and APEC.

Indonesia has become a stabilizing force in a world that is increasingly divided thanks to the president’s sensible diplomacy, which aims to strengthen ties with China while strengthening partnerships with the United States.

During a trip to the United Kingdom in November, President Prabowo walked ahead with US$ 8.5 billion in funding commitments. Another recent developments, from arrival to BRICS, to bilateral agreements in clean energy, equipment and knowledge, not just gain Indonesia but also help to regional and global advancement.

It’s not about using energy for its own sake; it’s about demonstrating that Indonesia has the capacity and vision to tackle common world issues.

These initial 100 times are just the start, but they give sufficient reason for optimism about Indonesia’s potential. The foundations laid but far—in social policy, system, and international diplomacy—are just the first steps in a much longer journey for our country.

But, President Prabowo has made it abundantly clear that the difficult work of changing Indonesia will continue to be done throughout his presidency with the same intensity and control that have characterized these earlier times.

The path ahead will not be without its problems. Corruption, government and international uncertainty are critical. But Indonesia’s story is one of endurance, determination, and creativity. These traits will link Indonesia’s efforts to create a prosperous future.

Sugiono is Indonesia’s minister of foreign affairs.

Continue Reading

New START talks as a path to Ukraine peace – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to meet with Donald Trump to discuss&nbsp, ending the Ukrainian conflict&nbsp, and&nbsp, resuming arms control talks &nbsp, after the American leader&nbsp, told the Davos elite&nbsp, last week that he’d like to do both with his Russian counterpart as soon as possible.

Since the New START will disappear in February 2026, but the negotiation process has been halted since 2023, their mention of resuming hands power discussions is important. Here, here, and here are context briefings on the subject.

To put it simply, the balance of nuclear and related forces ( like delivery systems ) between Russia and the US, the two nations with the most significant arsenals by far, is a big factor in global strategic stability.

By the time the Old Cold War was over, they realized how harmful and materially burdensome such programs were and agreed to limited cuts and checking measures.

This helped them overcome their security ambiguity, which refers to one side’s defensively intended moves ( such as building nukes for deterrence ) being perceived by their rival as offensively intended ( such as preparing for an overwhelming first strike ) and thus triggering an escalation cycle.

Their security problem returned, though, according to NATO’s east expansion. With their substitute conflict in Ukraine, it then advanced to a new risky stage, which could get worse if the New START expires without a successor.

Trump made the decision to resume the nuclear talks with Russia and China, which he claimed were on the verge of success before the 2020 election, which is why he brought this up during his video conference at Davos.

To be sure, he might have exaggerated the chances of coming to a deal had he won in the past, especially since China was reluctant to do it and Russia demanded ( as Peskov did ) British and French nuclear cuts, as well ( as Peskov did ).

The point of this explanation is to demonstrate that resuming US-Russian discussions on arms control may speed up the Russian peace process pending the outcome of the latter, which was encourage reciprocal compromises in this regard.

It can only be speculated what form that could take, but some of the proposals at the end of this analysis&nbsp, here &nbsp, and the one that was elaborated on&nbsp, here &nbsp, could be in the cards if both sides have the political will.

The need to restart arms control discussions is more serious than ever, not just because the US-Russian safety conflict recently reached a dangerous juncture and because New START has already expired, but also because new weapons systems have been developed and deployed, such as Russian hypersonic Oreshniks.

A new international arms race may soon start, and given how these munitions is be&nbsp, comparable in power to nukes but without the radiation, it’s just a matter of time before the US and others catch up.

This potential rivalry wouldn’t really be between the US and Russia like it used to be, but it would almost certainly include all additional nuclear power as well as some non-nuclear says like Iran and others as well. Due to the hyper-proliferation of systems since the end of the Old Cold War.

Another important nuclear and/or missile forces can only be brought on board through a multilateral agreement, with a US-Russian cope at its core, to agree to reduce these weapons and stop others from obtaining them.

In reality, they may agree to accept UN Security Council sanctions against any non-signatory state who is formally accused of developing or using these weapons in secret, as well as against any signatory who is formally accused of stockpiling more of these weapons than agreed upon.

What is essentially being proposed in a new global security architecture, which calls for the contribution of all key people, is essentially the non-proliferation of cutting-edge non-nuclear arms.

There is still a long way to go before anything of the type is agreed to at the suggested level, which includes the delicate nitty-gritty details of monitoring mechanisms, but it is in every responsible nuclear and missile energy’s best interests to see this happen. This includes the delicate nitty-gritty details of monitoring mechanisms.

The only way to get there is to end the Russian conflict as quickly as possible through a number of pragmatist mutually agreeable agreements in order for the US-Russian core of the world proper protection system to work on this front.

This&nbsp, article&nbsp, was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished with kind consent. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber&nbsp, below.

Continue Reading

Will Trump go down as a great or awful president? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Political “greatness” is a hard thing to determine, although some people have tried.

One of the accepted theories is that it is necessary for a president to face significant challenges, meet them by altering how the US operates, institutionalize those changes in a way that has a lasting impact, and persuade the American people to support them by unifying ( or at least coalescing ) behind the president’s leadership.

Research on the role of US president has attempted to establish how past presidents ‘ positions stack up against those of their predecessors. There is general agreement that the United States has had three truly great presidents – George Washington ( 1789-1797 ), Abraham Lincoln ( 1861-1865 ), and Franklin Delano Roosevelt ( 1933-1945 ) – and several truly terrible presidents – including Warren G Harding ( 1921-1923 ), James Buchanan ( 1857-1861 ) and Franklin Pierce ( 1853-1857 ).

But what distinguishes these presidents as great or bad? These examinations are consistent with the intensity of the problems that these leaders encountered during their terms in office and how they successfully overcame them.

George Washington had to work together to form a new country out of the 13 freshly united states, creating a nation that still stands.

Lincoln had to deal with the independence of the southern says, the Civil War, and the difficulty of putting an end to slavery. He won the war, bringing the country together, and finally put an end to the most controversial matter the country has ever encountered ( or at least its change from slavery to racism and segregation ).

FDR participated in both the Second World War and the Great Depression. He also altered the US government, giving birth to the modern-liberal condition.

All three faced philosophical problems to the government’s very existence, and they succeeded in overcoming them. By the end of their administration, all three had finally been acknowledged as having influenced the public to their opinions.

As for the “terrible” leaders, they usually preceded the fantastic people, facing similar problems and failing to meet them. Many of the “middle” leaders never had to face significant difficulties or were able to overcome them by utilizing the country’s existing power and institutions without having to transform the nation.

So where does Trump fall in this mythology? His previous name, generally speaking, is difficult to define as “great”. In fact, according to some political positions, he is considered the worst president in history.

He did implement some scheme adjustments that his supporters liked, but he was able to bring about lasting change or unite the nation in support of his leadership. Reelection battle and his son Joe Biden’s instant reform of many of his policies provide evidence of this, which demonstrates that Trump had not been able to engender lasting change.

Mount Rushmore in South Dakota features the heads of presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt.
President George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt are among the guests at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. Photo: Guido Vermeulen-Perdaen / Shutterstock via The Talk

The Covid-19 pandemic and the country’s huge polarization provided the opportunity, but neither of these events led to unifying victories for Trump’s legacy.

Trump largely responded to the epidemic with” Operation Warp Speed,” a public-private collaboration that accelerated the development of vaccinations for the pandemic. However, he downplayed vaccines as a cure for the disease in his later speeches and tweets, stoking disagreement over how to address the issue, causing magnetization and stoking vaccine skepticism.

The US’s largest issue that has occurred over the past 20 years has undoubtedly been its increasing degree of magnetization, which has increased steadily since the mid-1990s. President Obama, Biden, and George W. Bush have all failed to stop the country’s growth, making it the most significant domestic threat to legal democracy.

Trump may be able to stop this, despite being generally seen as a divided and polarizing number.

One of Trump’s greatest advantages is that he has assembled a group of incredibly devoted and devoted followers who can rely on his selections. His supporters appear to be enthusiastic about Trump and his individual tone, which have given him great latitude to pursue his goals with legislation in a variety of fields. His supporters care a lot about issues like immigration and the business, and he has already taken steps to satisfy them in these areas.

His day-one actions&nbsp, to mark the border&nbsp, and boost arrests will&nbsp, meet some Republicans, &nbsp, and research indicates that views of the economy are &nbsp, greatly biased by politics. Trump’s mere election will likely encourage Republicans ‘ conviction that the business is performing well.

Trump’s biggest challenge is in getting the almost two-thirds of Americans who don’t consistently vote Republican on table. Because of his supporters ‘ devotion, he is likely to keep them backing whatever cause he advocates for in the majority of policy sections. He frequently makes changes in what he stands for and supports policies that his supporters used to support without experiencing reaction.

He has changed, for instance, from opposing the US government’s restrictions on the social media network Twitter to delaying the US’s. With a little maneuvering in the social environment, he might be able to win more supporters among Americans.

You Trump expand his assistance?

If Trump were to take action on issues that already have widespread public support, such as abortion, gun control, and the provincial part in healthcare, he would likely be able to maintain his devoted following while gaining support from earlier hostile groups.

The majority of people prefer Democratic policies on these subjects, so Trump may offer to work with Democrats to create nonpartisan policy that previous presidents had just dreams about.

Republican supporters may not be able to cast ballots against their own president, who frequently might laugh at working with Democrats to succeed. Democrats are but defeated that they might seize every chance they are given to enhance their goals, which is against the customary tendency to attempt to deny a sitting Republican president any parliamentary success.

In this way, Trump may achieve something that no previous leader has accomplished in the last 30 times: bipartisan support for significant congressional legislation that would tackle issues that Americans consider crucial. This may end the polarization circular and provide the first political pact in US history in decades.

It is difficult to understand how Trump achieves his purpose of being viewed as “great” if this situation is left open and a new global turmoil may arise. The course of four years will show.

David Andersen is an associate professor in US politicians, Durham University

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

Trump voters not the climate enemies you think they are – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

People of Carteret County, North Carolina, whose seaside towns and villages are being slashed by the rising Atlantic, will experience yet another monster sea on another day.

However, its electorate elected Donald Trump to the White House, a gentleman who had rejected the science of climate change and had unilaterally withdrawn his nation from the Paris Agreement on climate change before the moon had also set on his first time in business.

It is a paradox that has captivated many people’s minds. The term “denialism” dominated late-night talk shows and became widely known at annual UN summits in 2017, when Trump forked out for the first time to withdraw from the agreement, which spiritually pledges nations to reduce global warming to well below 2°C.

Denialism stifles a compulsive rejection of climate change’s existence. It has led to a community that is unable to distinguish fact from fiction, frequently to the expense of the author. However, climate-conscious officials in a handful of Democrat states have repeated their devotion to medical information.

As an anthropologist, I found myself miserable with the way the famous Trump voting was treated while hardly ever being given the opportunity to speak for themselves. I have participated in climate elections as a scientist, environmentalist and minister, and I felt there was little mirror among the treaty’s activists about their own part in the US exit.

I began a PhD to learn about culture politics ‘ non-participants. It took me to southern North Carolina, where the effects of climate change and a flimsy indifference to the crisis are both present. Like so many other American communities, this place is also known for its coastal communities.

Hurricane Helene also rages in North Carolina in the fall of 2024. Photo: Karl Dudman via The Talk

I was interested in learning how people around dealt with climate research and what denialism really looked like. I spent a time talking to people with” Trump Won” colors on their meadows, but I also met experts, government officials, activists and Liberals.

Here is one point I found, and one point I didn’t.

Culture triumphs over “facts”

Although the science of climate change is very powerful, technology alone cannot explain what makes a solution fair or who should have a say in its design. The Paris Agreement, for instance, has a strong social aspect that was hard-won by developing countries, small island states and global activists.

It depicts a planet where wealthy nations like the US are largely to blame for climate change and have to take responsibility for addressing it, and it forbids financial flows to the developing nations to aid in their adaptation. This is a tough narrative for several precarious Americans who don’t feel wealthy or bad.

I saw a similar structure in my own research. Designs that generally guide open relationship with climate action by the federal government and community actions include racism, indigenous information, industrial injustice, and children. These topics won’t always be popular in remote, traditional communities like Carteret state.

According to opinion polls and vote information in the US, climate change is a topic on which voters are divided.

A boathouse with a boat bearing a US flag.
North Carolina has a long history of being a major local firm. Karl Dudman

This helps explain why climate change advocates frequently speak to the already-engaged by making reference to other liberal reasons. However, supporters may not always be more influenced by the truth than they are by naysayers. Simply put, it’s simpler to sign up for a reason you can see yourself supporting.

‘ Denialism’ is a poor strategy

What I didn’t get in North Carolina was what I came looking for: environment for.

In the conversations I had in Carteret County, climate change often came up naturally, but the responses were uneven, ranging from curiosity to concern to mistrust and disinterest to fatalism and skepticism. What mention there was hardly fit the stereotype of bitter, conspiracy-fuelled rejection of reality.

In this tight-knit fishing community, people had become wary of outside interventions. Some people were offended by environmental movements because they were given instructions on how to manage a coastline by regulatory scientists or environmental activists.

Others were fatalist about preventing sea level rise; generations spent on the Atlantic’s fierce frontline taught them that you don’t fight storms, you ride them out. Many people were aware of the changes taking place but were unable to devote much time or money, or else found it intolerable to wake up each day thinking about the demise of their local community.

A fishing boat leaving a harbour at dusk.
North Carolina’s fishers face several threats to their livelihood. Photo: Karl Dudman via The Conversation

Denialism lacked a justification for this. In contrast, it misrepresented complex social dynamics as a matter of simply accepting or rejecting facts by failing to distinguish between disagreement and lack of agreement.

So why does any of this matter? Because we give ourselves permission to stop enquiring about what we could be doing differently when we identify one group as the sole cause of a problem. After all, climate action’s supporters, from UN officials to individual voters, have a say in what legitimate climate action looks like and who wants to be a part of it.

Reiterating that “science is real,” in the vein of world leaders and American lawn signs, is a rip-off of the US’s withdrawal from Paris, misses the point. Public dissention frequently relates to whose vision of a good world we are working toward rather than whether we should fix it.

This is not to shift blame for Trump’s withdrawal. Nor should it be used to applaud those in politics, business, and the media who have repeatedly omitted the climate debate in defiance of their own policies.

A person sits mending rope in a workshop.
Carteret’s older residents have seen the decline of local industries and ecosystems. Photo: Karl Dudman via The Conversation

However, limiting public dissention to a matter of misinformation and gullibility implies a lack of humility and ignores concerns that might not turn into opposition if handled politely. We can all do more to reduce the toxicity of climate politics by asking ourselves more questions.

As Trump signed his first executive orders, I pressed send on my thesis’s final corrections. How the international community reacts this time is up for debate, but the last four years have taught me that it may influence whether or not there will be another time.

Karl Dudman is a PhD candidate in anthropology, University of Oxford

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Human conscription flagging? Learn the term ‘attritible drone’ – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the war there has been impacted by relatively expendable ( “attritable” in military jargon ), cheap drones&nbsp, and a rapidly growing roster of unmanned and robotic systems. Collectively, these systems are redefining how military forces may pay modern war.

With each part in this battle rushing to secure a modern benefits, the Russian battle is&nbsp, transforming&nbsp, into a clash between normal forces that are both backed by growing numbers of intelligent and remote-controlled systems. Each attack has steadily&nbsp, poured&nbsp, more and more resources into developing this technology, buying to be a move ahead of the other.

Ukraine’s experience on the front lines reflects a shift toward robotic systems that strengthen or attempt to replace human operators in the most risky missions and in opposition to an enemy that is willing to deploy more and more manpower into major front assaults.

Ukrainian officials began to describe their nation as a “war test for the future” after Kyiv’s forces fielded but some intelligent and mechanical systems over the past three years. This is because fight in Ukraine offers the best environment for ongoing testing, evaluation, and refinement of like systems.

Numerous businesses in Europe and the United States have tested their robots and other devices in Ukraine. At this point in the fight, those companies are striving to achieve “battle-tested in Ukraine” certificates for their goods.

For instance, US defence technology firm &nbsp, Anduril&nbsp, just started selling its new autonomous robots after successful testing carried out in Ukraine in October 2024. Russian and Western aircraft manufacturers are now working more closely together on both developing AI and drones. Through its Replicator&nbsp program, the US government is attempting to expedite the deployment of affordable automatic systems. Additionally, it is working closely with the private industry to examine Ukrainian systems and technologies before using them in upcoming conflicts.

Lately, US Army Chief of Staff General Randy George&nbsp, noted&nbsp, that the Ukraine conflict “has demonstrated the value of little, attritable robots on the field”. This fight implementation of relatively cheap platforms has provided the Pentagon an opportunity to observe how integrating cutting-edge software with robust drone technology can continue across the US Department of Defense, drawing&nbsp, lessons&nbsp, from the Russia-Ukraine war as the Pentagon prepares for potential future conflicts, including with&nbsp, China.

One of the larger, more expensive drones that are NOT considered’ attritible’: Soldiers from the Ukrainian drone unit Yasni Ochi set up a Ukrainian Vampire bomber drone, which drops anti-tank mines, for bombing operations. Photo: David Kirichenko.

For the first time in December 2024, Ukrainian forces successfully attacked Russian positions using only ground and first-person view drones, further developing how Ukraine is utilizing unmanned technology on the battlefield.

According to Sergeant&nbsp, Volodymyr Dehtiarov&nbsp, of the Khartiia Brigade, which was involved in this attack, dozens of robotic and unmanned systems, including machine-gun-equipped ground drones and kamikaze first-person view aerial drones, were deployed near Lyptsi, north of Kharkiv.

Although these were remote-controlled systems that still needed a significant human to operate them, Ukraine is now making progress by gradually putting more combat robots into use and eventually releasing more autonomous systems to the battlefield.

In September of this year, Ukraine also attacked a Russian trench with ground robots in Kursk Oblast, with numerous other instances of these systems being quickly developed and deployed for combat.

Ukraine has no choice but to maximize its use of technology, as the&nbsp, manpower disparity&nbsp, between Ukraine and Russia is still significant along the eight-hundred-mile front line of the war.

While technological developments have proceeded at a very rapid pace in this war, it also became clear that systematizing the combined research, development, testing, evaluation, and use of different systems by different units across the entire force was crucial.

Therefore, in February 2024, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a&nbsp, decree&nbsp, to establish the national Unmanned Systems Forces, with Colonel Vadym Sukharevskyi&nbsp, appointed&nbsp, as commander in June 2024.

The Russian military announced in December 2024 that it would establish an unmanned systems branch to better integrate its forces ‘ use of autonomous and robotic technologies and ensure that different military branches can take and codify lessons learned from combat in Ukraine.

Both nations assert that their respective militaries have used numerous AI developments in drones and other tactical and battlefield systems.

Ukraine has been a leader in the development and use of various unmanned systems and AI technologies across domains and mission types, three years into its conflict with Russian aggression. In 2025, Ukraine is&nbsp, expected&nbsp, to field AI-enabled drone swarms and massive numbers of ground vehicles to counter Russian forces. As&nbsp, one Ukrainian official put it:” We count people, and we want our people to be as far from the front line as we can”.

Ukraine’s private sector has stepped up to accelerate the development of autonomous and robotic technologies for enhanced targeting capabilities, with companies like&nbsp, TAF Drones&nbsp, leading the way, aided by the&nbsp, Brave1&nbsp, organization, a coordination platform established by Ukraine’s government playing an important role in helping the private sector.

Brave1 uncrewed ground vehicle with machine gun. Photo: Iryna Supruniuk

Ukraine’s plan is to ensure&nbsp, AI-powered&nbsp, combat drones can ensure the nation’s advantage over the Russian force on the battlefield.

The Russian military&nbsp, claims&nbsp, the same for its military AI research and application in this war. For example, Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov&nbsp, stated&nbsp, in October 2024 that AI-powered drones are playing a pivotal role on the battlefield in Ukraine, though he did not elaborate.

The Russian Ministry of Defense launched the Rubicon Center in August 2024 to help systematize lessons from Ukraine, including the development and application of AI, to better understand how different kinds of robotic and autonomous systems are used in Ukrainian combat. Russia’s planned unmanned systems branch is likely to be at the epicenter of this initiative. Russian president Vladimir Putin also announced that Russia is&nbsp, increasing&nbsp, military drone production to approximately 1.4 million in 2024, aiming to stay abreast of Ukraine’s own&nbsp, rapid&nbsp, and large-scale drone manufacturing.

Both Ukrainian and Russian forces&nbsp, prioritize&nbsp, minimizing drone operator involvement to protect trained assets in a complex combat environment. Concerning the use of drones capable of killing targets, Ukraine frequently prioritizes the need to survive and defend itself.

Meanwhile, despite recent&nbsp, announcements&nbsp, of AI-enabled combat drones already used against Ukraine, Russia’s military AI likely mainly supports data analysis and rapid decision-making. For example, In November 2024, the Russia-allied Donetsk People’s Republic claimed that its” Donbass Dome” airspace defense and electronic warfare system&nbsp, evaluates&nbsp, different types of information from multitudes of sources to evaluate incoming threats. This is said to be accomplished with the aid of artificial intelligence algorithms. The evaluated data is&nbsp, transmitted&nbsp, to the military and law enforcement for follow-on actions.

Given that the Russian military is attempting to understand the Ukrainian battlefield, such data analysis efforts are likely occurring across a variety of systems, even though public information on their overall effectiveness is comparatively sparse. Similar initiatives are being made in the Russian defense sector, with a subsidiary of the Russian military industry Rostec claiming in 2024 that a neural network for optical drone detectors allegedly increases their detection range by 40 %.

On the other side of the war, Ukrainian officials are &nbsp, on record&nbsp, noting the need for tens of thousands of uncrewed robotic ground vehicles in 2025 for combat and logistics missions. These officials also noted that Ukrainian forces have been using numerous domestically developed AI-augmented systems to allow aerial drones to attack targets on the battlefield without being piloted while remaining effective in areas protected by extensive jamming. At this point in the war, there are &nbsp, around &nbsp, ten Ukrainian companies competing in state procurements to offer AI products.

Ukrainian officials have stated that in 2025, more autonomous drones with AI targeting&nbsp, will arrive&nbsp, on the battlefield, potentially making way for “real drone swarm uses”. Ukraine’s efforts to use AI on the battlefield are aided by willing partners, such as the Germany-based Helsing AI firm. In December 2024, Helsing&nbsp, announced&nbsp, that the first few hundred of almost four thousand of its AI-equipped HX-2 Karma unmanned aerial vehicles earmarked for Ukraine were set to be delivered to the Ukrainian front.

Apparently, HX-2 is&nbsp, immune&nbsp, to electronic warfare countermeasures via its ability to search for, reidentify and engage targets without a signal or a continuous data connection, while allowing a human operator to stay in or on the loop for critical decisions.

Russian technical experts &nbsp, acknowledge&nbsp, that “autonomous flying robots”, drones with artificial intelligence that determine their own targets, are used in combat and apparently kill people – already hitting and eliminating&nbsp, targets although the Russians usually don’t provide technical specifications for such claims.

Such developments, such as the terminal guidance and image recognition technologies that allow drones to fly autonomously to designated targets once the human operator has approved strikes on those targets, are likely to indicate a more limited AI role in aerial drones.

While on the receiving end of Ukraine’s increasing AI and autonomy use, many Russian experts express&nbsp, concerns&nbsp, that the pace of AI-enabled military developments could get out of control, thus requiring global regulation “in the interests of all humanity”. They also note how difficult it is to forbid the development of AI for military purposes when national interests are in jeopardy and the outcome of wars are in dispute.

Still, Russian military experts, including those writing in key military publications such as&nbsp, Arsenal Otechestva, believe in AI’s potential in military applications. These experts highlight its ability to increase system autonomy, improve tactical decision-making, enable real-time operational support in combat zones, reduce crew risks, and reduce uncertainty due to the rapid processing of large amounts of unstructured data.

The technological arms race in this war continues to grow as Russia is determined to fight until Ukraine is conquered and Ukraine is resolute in defending its freedom. Each month in this protracted war brings new technological advancements and successes, with the innovation cycle being continuously pushed forward by new technologies that the adversary either copy or counter, causing a new round of innovation to bring about the newest discovery.

The development and deployment of these technologies in battle is closely monitored by Ukraine’s Western supporters. Mark Milley, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and retired Army general, predicted that up to one-third of the US military would be made up of robotic systems within the next ten to fifteen years, an assessment that was likely based on observations of technologies used in the Ukraine war.

To be sure, certain systems in use by both Ukrainian and Russian forces can function more effectively than others on a battlefield teeming with countermeasures, but the sum total of different autonomous, robotic, and unmanned technologies used in the past three years demonstrates the potential for rapid, large-scale fielding.

Both Ukraine and Russia are working toward a faster pace with the development of various battlefield drone and robotic systems as a result of their desire for precision, mass employment, overwhelming the adversary, resilience against countermeasures, and reducing risks to human lives. These advancements are having an impact on the battlefield at both the tactical and operational levels and are shaping how the battle will be conducted in the future.

Samuel Bendett is a Technology and National Security Program adjunct senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security. David Kirichenko is a Henry Jackson Society associate research fellow. He can be found on X @DVKirichenko.

This article, originally published by the Modern War Institute, is republished by Asia Times with permission. The authors ‘ opinions are those of themselves, and they do not represent the official positions of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

Continue Reading

Tariffs targeting China and Mexico can’t solve US fentanyl crisis – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

About 6 % of the US population regularly uses illegal medications, compared to more than anyone else in the world.

One of these drugs, fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine, is the main cause of the rise in US overdose incidents in recent years. Although recent fentanyl overdose deaths have decreased a little, they are also significantly higher than they were only five years ago.

Ending the fentanyl problems won’t be easy. The U.S. has a decades-long addiction problem, which predates the development of fentanyl, and many attempts to regulate, constitutional, and confine people to drug use have had little impact. Americans are only a victim of the narcotic crisis, which costs them tens of billions of dollars annually.

President Donald Trump appears to be considering a new tool to combat America’s substance problem, trade policy, after previous policies that failed to stop fentanyl deaths.

Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they don’t stop the flow of drugs across American territories during his plan. Trump also promised to implement a fresh tariff regime on China if it doesn’t act more to implement more restrictions on the production of the fentanyl-making substances. He reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, saying to reporters,” We’re thinking in terms of 25 % on Mexico and Canada because they’re allowing … fentanyl to come in”.

As a teacher who studies interpersonal plan, I believe that both the proposed transfer taxes and fentanyl pose significant risks to the US. The real issue is whether tariffs did work, or increase what is already a crisis, despite the unquestionable people toll of morphine.

Fentanyl: The’ second greatest problem ‘

More than 107, 000 Americans died from overdoses in 2021, making it the most of any overdose to date, and almost seven out of those incidents involved methadone or other chemical drugs. In 2022, methadone was killing an average of 200 folks each day. And despite a slight decline in fentanyl deaths in 2023, almost 75, 000 Americans still perished from synthetic opioids that time. The then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to get” the single greatest challenge we face as a land” in March of that year, the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available.

However, record demonstrates that government efforts to stop drug use frequently fail miserably.

These plans have generally failed to reduce the supply and use of drugs, and they have also been known to seriously hurt people and communities of colour. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of detainment for nonviolent drug acts went from 50, 000 to 400, 000. But these guidelines barely put a dent in use. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65 % in 1980 to 58 % in 1997.

In short, previous US efforts to reduce improper substance use haven’t been particularly successful. The US appears to be moving toward using taxes right now, but research suggests that those measures won’t produce better outcomes and may actually lead to significant damage.

Why taxes didn’t job

The Tax Act of 1789, which was passed in the United States, dates back to the beginning of its experimentation with levies. This much history has shown that protectionist policies, commercial subsidies, and tariffs can also cause global economic instability by raising prices for consumers. Additionally, story demonstrates that tariffs are ineffective as negotiating tools and fail to cause major policy changes in goal nations. The benefits of taxes are usually weighed against the costs, according to economists.

The average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports increased from 3 % to 11 % during Trump’s first term. However, while China’s imports decreased significantly, the total trade relationship didn’t significantly change: China continues to be the second-largest US supplier of goods.

Vietnam and various local nations with relatively low labor costs were benefitted by the levies. Basically, the tariffs on China caused production to change, with international companies investing billions of dollars in rival countries.

Trump has previously used industry plan to impose fentanyl on China; he did this in his first term. However, despite China‘s plan adjustments, such as adding fentanyl to its list of prohibited substances in 2019, morphine deaths in the US continued to rise. Already, China also ranks as the No. 1 maker of morphine precursors, or substances used to make illegal fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that exact time, has become a major supplier of fentanyl.

A problem of supply and demand

Drug use has been a common practice throughout US story. And when you look at this story and examine how other countries are handling this issue without making it illegal, you discover that the Swiss and French have approached it as a potential habit issue. They realized that the illegal business is fueled by desire. And as any analyst will tell you, if you don’t restrict the desire, provide will find a way. That’s why care functions and bans don’t.

The US government’s ability to regulate these medicines ‘ production is at best limited. The issue is that fresh chemical products will continue to be developed. Basically, failure to restrict demand simply places dressings on hemorrhaging wounds. What the United States needs is a more comprehensive method of dealing with the requirement that is causing the medication crisis.

At Miami University, Rodney Coates is a professor of critical culture and cultural reports.

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Trump doesn’t talk softly, but does he carry a big stick? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Donald Trump, the president of the United States, claims to be an agent of great change both domestically and internationally. However, a closer examination of the possibility that he’ll overturn previous foreign policy decisions, including those made by his predecessor Joe Biden, suggests that the extent of his adjustments might not be in line with his New Golden Age language.

It’s unusual to change a plan from president to president. According to experts, free promises of remarkable shifts can be socially dangerous when they backfire.

” Across administrations—even people as diverse as those of Biden and Trump – foreign policy is something like an iceberg”, Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, wrote lately. The apparent portion is sharp and gleaming, and it draws a lot of the attention. Yet it also has a much bigger and underexamined base, one that tends to be largely unchanged”.

Current examples of promises that were implied or broken were also present.

Clinton situation: China MFN position

Clinton, the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in 1991, accused the first President Bush of being smooth on China, disregarding its human rights record for business benefits, while running against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush. Clinton vowed to be more tough.

He was no.

Shortly after Clinton’s arrival in Washington, human rights came in second place, trailing only American businesspeople’s desire to capitalize on Chinese trading. Clinton offered China the&nbsp, business benefits conferred by most-favored-nation position, which guarantees non-discriminatory care between business associates. China may benefit from just making a small political movement or two at home.

The petition was rejected by Chinese officials. Clinton provided MFN anyhow.

Obama scenario: Arab chemical arms

President Barak Obama issued a stern warning to Palestinian leader Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical arms against rebels in 2012 after he had begun his second term in office. &nbsp, Doing so would mix a “red range” and result in serious US military action.

A year later, Assad bombarded pro-democracy residents with hazardous chemicals, and killed some 1, 400 people, women and children. Obama only laid the blame on the US Congress for forogling military actions.

Trump has three significant pieces of executive power left over from the previous leadership: the end of the Gaza conflict, forceful China in East Asia, and the Ukraine war. He might discover that politics benefits more from choice.

Then Ukraine

Biden vehemently supported Ukraine and decidedly detested Putin himself. In the runup to the November vote, Trump described Vladimir Putin as a “genius” and seemed ready to break with Biden plans.

Last year, however, Trump changed his tune. Acclaim for Putin morphed into mockery. ” It’s a ridiculous war”, he said of the Ukraine carnage. ” I think Russia’s going to be in big trouble”.

He said Putin is” not doing so well”, suggested that the Russian president’s leadership was” no way to run a state”. Trump said Putin had made a “big oversight” by invading Ukraine.

One important feature of his counterpart’s legislation that Trump now shared: opposiiton to sending US troops to fight the Russians.

Trump is inherited a pair of significant crises, aside from Russia, and it appears he is never considering making a reversal from current policies, including a belligerent China and a Middle Eastern conflict.

China

Washington’s reactions to the three governments have been careful because China has increased its threat to Taiwan and established marine isolation areas in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

Obama was concerned about China’s expanding economic dominance in the US market, but he frequently supported Beijing’s bourgeois stance. Nevertheless, he coined the phrase “pivot to China”, to attempt the US to bolster security in the Western Pacific.

Trump followed up during his 2017-2021 second phrase, and warned of increasing Chinese military strength. He claimed that Beijing was attempting to “displace the US in the Indo-Pacific area, expand the reach of its state-driven economic unit, and rearrange the region in its favour.” He increased US military spending by about 17 % compared to Obama’s.

In addition, Trump tried to rebalance US trade with China, an action that had little effect on China’s exports to the US ( they increased ) or American exports into China ( they decreased ).

After Biden took strength, he maintained and expanded Trump’s taxes. He even built on Trump’s and Obama’s China fears by &nbsp, beginning to revive traditional relationships along the China Seas and into the Pacific Ocean: with &nbsp, South Korea, Japan, The Philippines and Australia. Chinese leader Xi Jinping signaled his irritation with the move, accusing Biden of trying to” contain” China.

Trump has never spoken of undoing Biden’s job.

His choice of two China hawks to direct his foreign interests team, including new secretary of state Marco Rubio and former head of the country Michael Waltz, is widely regarded as strong on Beijing.

Rubio had a telephone conversation with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and was informed in his post the week before being confirmed. The conversation centered on the” United States ‘ responsibility to our allies in the region.” According to a State Department consideration, he even expressed” critical concern over China’s aggressive behavior against Taiwan and in the South China Sea.”

Wang reacted with a dose of condescension-infused proper diplomacy. ” We will not help Taiwan to be separated from China”, Wang said. Wang finally added a term used by teachers to chastise rebellious kids,” I hope you will operate accordingly”, which roughly translates as “behave yourself”.

Waltz has praised Biden’s alliance building in Asia, a rare piece of praise in highly partisan Washington. Shortly after his nomination, he called China the “greatest adversary” of the United States.

Trump has yet to remark, or remake, one of Biden’s most surprising declarations. In a dozen statements, Biden pledged that if Beijing attacks Taiwan, which China considers its own, the US will militarily defend it. The statements violated almost a half-century of US” strategic ambiguity” intended to keep China guessing what the Americans would do if they invaded the island.

Middle East

Trump wants to put an end to the conflict between Israel and Hamas, the Islamist terror organization, in the Middle East. He supports Israel, which is one of the longest-lasting constants of US foreign policy. Nonetheless, he has expressed horror at the heavy death toll among Palestinians.

Trump and Bidden entered into a diplomatic partnership as he was getting ready to travel back to Washington. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu objected to Biden’s attempts to reach a truce despite the US administration sending naval warships to the Levantine coast to deter Iranian attacks on the Jewish state.

Trump worked to get Netanyahu to agree to a 42-day ceasefire, by adding enticements to the diplomatic pressure. Beyond anything Biden had to offer, both sweeteners went:

  • He would direct the US to levy sanctions on Netanyahu’s allies who occupy West Bank settlements and brutally assault Palestinian residents.
  • He also suggested a radical solution to the issues that Palestinians will encounter when they return to their severely damaged homes in the community. He suggested moving more than half of the two million people into Egypt and Jordan.

Trump said the exile could be for a short time or “long-term”.

The offers appealed to Netanyahu. A significant portion of the electorate supports his government, according to settlers. Moreover, Netanyahu has long favored” transfer” of Palestinians from both Gaza and the West Bank to Arab countries. He was once associated with an organization called” Jordan is Palestine, Inc”.

The neo-transfer idea died quickly. Egypt and Jordan rejected hosting expelled Palestinians.

The truce agreement, which includes an unrestricted Israeli exit from the Gaza Strip, may face problems in the future.

Ultra-nationalist members of Netanyahu’s government coalition are threatening to bring&nbsp, down the government. Hamas must be totally destroyed, they insist, and Israel forces must stay in the Gaza Strip for an open-ended period occupation, they said. They remarked that their demands were objectives that Netanyahu had set out.

If the Netanyahu government falls, it’s not clear if a new coalition can be built. The public at large wants Hamas destroyed. Elections would take time and undermine Trump’s desire to end the war immediately.

In short, it’s likely that Trump’s deal-making skill will face plenty of challenges before the Gaza war is over.

Continue Reading

Trump’s Columbia beatdown a message to China, Russia – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Gustavo Petro, the president of Colombia, initially believed he would adjust strained relationships with his returning US rival by immediately rejecting two recently agreed military flights for the repatriation of his government’s illegal immigrants, but he was finally taught an unforgettable lesson.

Trump&nbsp, reacted with fury&nbsp, by threatening 25 % taxes that would twice in a year’s time and sanctions high-level officers on national security reasons among other disciplinary measures, which immediately prompted Petro&nbsp, to surrender.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt then&nbsp, confirmed&nbsp, her country’s triumph in its short dispute with Colombia, soon after which Petro&nbsp, rage-tweeted a complex rant&nbsp, about imperialism and racism as a parting shot against Trump that was frequently met with scorn online, particularly from Americans.

Trump’s handling of this brief-lived scandal was significant because he demonstrated how serious he is about using tariffs and sanctions to coerce Ibero-American nations into accepting the return of their repatriated citizens.

He won the 2016 election in part because of his campaign pledge to stop illegal immigration along the southern border, but after an estimated 8 million illegals flooded into the country during Biden’s term, he then promised to expulse as many as possible if voters returned him to power like they did in the end.

However, it’ll be challenging to return all of them, which is why his administration wants to coerce them into voluntarily resigning by making the most difficult conditions for those who remain.

In order to intimidate some of them into returning home on their own terms, ergo the importance of making sure these flights aren’t rejected by sending them back to their homelands on military flights, including what just happened to some illegal immigrants from Brazil.

In parallel with this, the Trump Administration is&nbsp, exploring an agreement&nbsp, to deport asylum seekers to El Salvador, which is now globally known for its zero-tolerance of gang members.

On the topic, US-sanctioned Venezuela&nbsp, halted&nbsp, repatriation flights last February after&nbsp, briefly allowing&nbsp, their resumption in October 2023, so suspected Venezuelan gang members might be sent straight from the US to Salvadoran prisons if a deal is reached.

People who remain in the US illegally will always have to look over their shoulders and be afraid of being deported back to their homelands or sent to El Salvador, depending on who they are, with an unprecedented ramping up of ICE raids across the country.

Trump’s harsh response to Petro’s rejection of those two previously agreed military flights is due to the fact that the Trump administration recognizes illegal immigration as a threat to national security.

If he didn’t inspire others to follow him, the majority of Ibero-American nations would, as one might expect, defy the US on this front as well, ruining his ambitious repatriation plans. Trump, therefore, had to remind Colombia and every other country in the hemisphere that they’re the US ‘ junior partner.

Failure to comply with its reasonable demands for repatriated citizens who illegally immigrated to the US will result in severe tariff and sanctions that will threaten their economies and severely inconvenience their political elite.

In what Trump called the nascent” Golden Age of America,” disrespecting Trump and the US personally as Petro did is completely unacceptable, and those who do so will be forced to pay the price, both politically and personally.

Regarding the assertion that every nation is supposed to be equal and must adhere to the same rules, the Biden administration falsely claimed that the so-called “rules-based order” was never what it was.

It was always about upholding the US’s declining unipolar hegemony in the emerging Multipolar World Order by strengthening the post-Old Cold War international hierarchy that dominated where it is now. To coax countries into meeting goals with varying success, a carrot-and-stick strategy pairs explicit double standards with.

Like most Ibero-American nations, those that are dependent on the US market and/or military equipment are more reliant on it, while those who are more autarkic and strategically independent are more receptive.

Trump is more direct than the Obama and Biden administrations, trying to hide this reality with lofty rhetoric and occasionally blinding its partners in ways like those Ibero-American nations that have previously refused to accept their repatriated citizens.

He doesn’t feel guilty about disclosing their junior status in the US because, per Machiavelli, he prefers his country to be feared over loved.

Additionally, Trump is preparing for&nbsp, negotiations with Putin&nbsp, over Ukraine as well as with Xi over trade and likely also Taiwan, so he’d appear weak in their eyes if he let middling leader like Petro publicly defy and even insult him without consequence. He became more aggressive with Colombia because of these demands.

The example that Trump just made out of Petro will, therefore, reverberate across the world. The” Golden Age of America,” as he affectionately describes it, is the US’s most extreme form of hyper-realism in foreign affairs, which explicitly declares its goals and aggressively pursues them without considering the opinions of other countries.

Thus, it might be better for Russia and China to&nbsp, compromise with the US&nbsp, instead of challenge it if they won’t replicate this policy, or if they lack the same power or will to use it.

This&nbsp, article&nbsp, was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading