Auf massiven aserbaidschanischen Druck konnte die Buchpräsentation des Konferenzsammelbandes “Das kulturelle Erbe von Arzach” nicht analog stattfinden.
Um so wichtiger ist es, auf den Sammelband über das gefährdete armenische Kulturgut in Arzach hinzuweisen. via @DGO_Berlin pic.twitter.com/abcXujKLz1— Notes from Georgia/South Caucasus (Hälbig, Ralph) (@SouthCaucasus) March 8, 2024
Day: March 7, 2024
House of Chess Players,
Yerevan, Armenia
Built in 1970
Architect Zhanna Mescheryakova
(c) B.A.C.U. more: https://t.co/rEf4K7PDtJ pic.twitter.com/TSvozuWm56— Notes from Georgia/South Caucasus (Hälbig, Ralph) (@SouthCaucasus) March 8, 2024
Art by Malxaz Datukishvili from Rustavi. 29×21 from 2024 series Rustavi paper, pencil, ink paste #GeorgianArt pic.twitter.com/AY3rwboMyX
— Notes from Georgia/South Caucasus (Hälbig, Ralph) (@SouthCaucasus) March 8, 2024
By Jim Petrila
(FPRI) — Since Hamas’ brutal terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, the Israeli response in Gaza over the past several months has led to scrutiny on whether Israel has violated the core principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). These core principles of IHL (in the United States generally referred to as the Law of Armed Conflict, or LOAC) have developed over time and aim to govern the conduct of states and individuals during both international and non-international armed conflict. These principles of distinction, military necessity, proportionality, and humanity are easily summarized, but applying these principles under current conditions in Gaza is exceedingly difficult.
Israel has consistently asserted that its military actions in Gaza are consistent with IHL. As the number of civilian casualties continues to grow (currently estimated at 30,000 deaths and twice that number wounded), and the number of well-publicized incidents (e.g., the recent incident involving an aid convey in Gaza that resulted in the deaths of over a hundred people; attacks on the Maghazi refugee camp and the tragic killing of three shirtless hostages waving white flags) there are increasing public challenges to Israeli assertions, particularly regarding the principles of distinction and proportionality. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), on the other hand, continues to produce evidence to support their claims that Hamas deliberately has put civilians at risk by using otherwise protected areas such as hospitals, mosques, and schools, for military purposes. The extent of Israeli compliance with IHL during its current military campaign against Hamas and Hamas’ violation of it by deliberately putting civilians at risk will most certainly enter the long list of charges and countercharges that have characterized the Israeli-Palestinian dispute since Israel was established in 1948. The purpose of this article is simply an attempt to provide a basic summary of the core principles of IHL, which are contained in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977, and to point out some of the difficulties in applying these principles to the facts on the ground.
As an initial matter, there is no doubt that IHL applies to the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. Whether Hamas is viewed as a terrorist group, a non-state actor, or something else, the current fighting in Gaza can be characterized as a non-international armed conflict and IHL principles clearly apply. Israel’s military action against Hamas following the horror of October 7 clearly and legitimately is based on Israel’s right to self-defense. Given the high level of support that the United States has provided and will continue to provide to Israel, it is in America’s national security interest to ensure that the IDF follows the principles of IHL. Additionally, there is a high degree of asymmetry involved, since the military wing of Hamas is a terrorist organization that unapologetically and with impunity defies every aspect of IHL—not only in its horrific October 7 attack, but in its entire military strategy, which is based on hiding itself within Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. Israel, on the other hand, remains sufficiently committed to the core principles of IHL that, even in the midst of a brutal war, it investigates its actions, and admits to mistakes (e.g., recently admitting that its bombing of the Maghazi refugee camp caused “unintended harm to uninvolved citizens” as a result of using weapons that were unsuitable for the nature of the military action).
The Four Basic Principles of International Humanitarian Law
Distinction
The principle of distinction, added to the Geneva Conventions by the 1977 Additional Protocols, requires parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between the civilian population and combatants, civilian objects and military objects, and to direct operations only against military targets. An uncomfortable underpinning of IHL is that it contemplates that civilians will be killed in warfare. Distinction is the most humanitarian of the basic principles, in that it requires military forces at all times to distinguish between military and non-military personnel and military and non-military targets.
The IDF faces an immediate dilemma in that Hamas forces do not wear uniforms, but instead hide within the population of Gaza. Hamas’ military infrastructure also is deeply embedded within the civilian infrastructure of Gaza, making it difficult to make the distinction between military and civilian targets. In fact, the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is the primary source of information about casualties in Gaza, does not distinguishbetween civilian and militant deaths and injury.
The issue of identifying legitimate targets is not unique to the current situation in Gaza. The United States has faced this issue since the 9/11 attacks, both in terms of “unlawful combatants” detained at Guantanamo Bay, but particularly in the use of drone signature strikes against al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and related terrorist targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Yemen, and Syria.
Of perhaps greater relevance to the current fighting in Gaza, US armed forces faced these issues in close combat in Iraq. During the Second Battle of Fallujah, a city of approximately 250,000 persons, an estimated 800 civilians died, even when US forces were able to evacuate or encourage much of the civilian population to leave before combat operations began. During the fighting to retake Mosul, a city of over 1.5 million people, the Islamic State did not allow the population to flee, and consistently used the local population as human shields. The result was a much higher level of civilian casualties; most estimates of civilians killed are between 9,000 and 10,000, though the actual number likely will never be known because of the massive destruction of buildings and the likelihood that many people were buried in the rubble.
The Israeli Supreme Court confronted the issue of targeted killings by Israeli armed forces during the Second Intifada. In a decision handed down in 2006 in a case brought by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether preventive strikes against Hamas targets were legal. A critical issue before the court was whether terrorists involved in the Intifada were combatants, unlawful combatants, or civilians. In reviewing the current state of IHL, the court rejected the argument put forward by the Israeli government (as the defendant in the case) that there is a separate category of “illegal combatant.” The court instead held that there are only two categories: combatants and civilians. The court held that terrorists, to include those fighting for Hizballah and Hamas, are not combatants as defined by international law because they do not follow the laws and customs of war. As civilians, however, who take direct part in hostilities, they are not protected from being military targets. The court then provided a broad definition of what it means to take direct part in military activities, including such activities as collecting intelligence, transporting fighters to or from places where hostilities are taking place, operating or servicing weapons, or serving in a command position. Note that the Israeli supreme court’s definition largely mirrors the United States definition of material support to terrorism found at 18 USC Section 2339B, though the US definition of “material support includes financial support as well.”
This decision is important in that it provides the Israeli legal basis for military actions in Gaza, even though the current scale of military action far exceeds the targeted killings that were part of the Israeli defense against the widespread terrorist attacks that the Second Intifada directed against Israeli civilians and resembles more the level and type of combat in Fallujah and Mosul.
The principle of distinction covers not only people but also places. Certain areas, including hospitals, are presumed to be civilian in nature and protected from military attack. Protected sites lose their protected status, however, if they are used for military purposes. In such cases, the burden is on the side conducting the attack to make the case that the site has lost its protected status. To be consistent with IHL, this determination must be made based on information available before the attack.
The Israeli government has claimed that the military’s decision to engage in action against the al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City was based on credible and convincing intelligence information that Hamas was using the hospital for military purposes. While the Israelis have released some information justifying their attack, they have not released their full justification, since it appears that at least a portion of their justification relied on sensitive intelligence sources or methods of collection. The United States recently declassified a limited amount of intelligence, concluding that the al-Shifa Hospital had in fact been used operationally by Hamas. Several Western press reports, including by the Washington Post, have assessed that the information publicly released to date by Israel has not made that case.
To ensure consistency with the Israeli legal interpretation of IHL, planned targets of the Israeli military campaign must be assessed under the principle of distinction, which is a significant challenge in a fast-paced and relentless bombing campaign in a dense urban environment against an enemy whose tactics are based on hiding among the civilian population. The current campaign potentially has raised new issues. For instance, news reporting has indicated that the IDF has been relying on artificial intelligence programs to assist in military targeting. It is unclear how artificial intelligence programs are being used and whether artificial intelligence assists, or has replaced, human decision-making in the targeting process. If the news reports are accurate, the IDF may be breaking new ground in terms of how its use of artificial intelligence fits into the concept of distinction.
Military Necessity
Military necessity allows all measures necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose so long as these measures are not otherwise prohibited by IHL. It is a legitimate military purpose to defeat the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible, but military necessity does not allow disproportionate or indiscriminate targeting, nor does it allow activities whose purpose is to spread terror among a civilian population. As stated in Article 54 of the Additional Protocol, an attacking force is not permitted to destroy “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.” Within the framework of military necessity, the IDF has imposed a significant blockade of Gaza, has limited relief supplies and has periodically cut electricity and communications within Gaza. The dilemma faced by the IDF is that efforts to degrade Hamas’ fighting capability also render hardship to the civilian population. The longer the armed conflict goes on, the greater the harm to the civilian population, and the greater the likelihood that Israel will face increased international pressure to shift its military tactics to ease the hardship so far imposed on the civilian population of Gaza.
Proportionality
Proportionality recognizes that incidental harm will occur to civilians during military operations. It should be noted that the focus of IHL is on limiting the inevitable civilian deaths that occur in military action. A detached discussion of the principles and the unfortunate realities of war does not in any way lessen the suffering and sense of loss that occurs with each civilian death or injury. As with the principle of distinction, proportionality as a concept asks the question of whether anticipated harm to the civilian population is “excessive” relative to the military advantage that is anticipated from the military action.
In general, proportionality requires judging each attack on its own merits. In a campaign as massive as Israel’s current military efforts, proportionality judgments must be made countless times each day, and each command decision ultimately is a judgment call that is linked to specific rules of engagement. Because proportionality assumes collateral damage, both to civilians and to property, an objective assessment becomes very difficult. The trade off in a decision to bomb in an urban environment—projected military advantage versus anticipated civilian death and injury—inherently leads to decisions that will be controversial.
At the tactical street level in an urban environment, snap judgments must be made, often with tragic consequences, as in the case of the three hostages who were killed by Israeli troops. The IDF has taken steps to attempt to limit civilian damage, such as issuing evacuation orders before launching military strikes. In the midst of the current military campaign, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of these steps. The concept of proportionality is particularly difficult in the current situation in which the majority of the population of Gaza has been largely displaced. As the military action continues and intensifies, it is reasonable to assume that the number of civilian deaths, already estimated at 30,000, will continue to mount.
Humanity
The fourth IHL principle is humanity, found in Article 35, which has two major provisions. The first prohibits the use of weapons intended to cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.” The second prohibits employing methods intended or likely to cause widespread and long-term severe damage to the natural environment.
Moving Forward
Israel’s military action in Gaza is an understandable reaction to the horrific Hamas actions of October 7, but the length and extent of the military action also will shape the reactions of Palestinians for the foreseeable future. Both October 7 and the Israeli response will enter the realm of historical memory. The periodic fighting between Israel and Hamas, particularly since Hamas gained control of Gaza in 2007, should not inspire confidence in anyone that a lasting peace is a likely outcome. An adherence to IHL, however, is a necessary component to enhance the chances of a longer lasting political settlement once the current military campaign ends.
It also is clear that the necessity of adhering to IHL is one that should apply to all parties in the conflict. If the collective and extensive experience in counterterrorism operations since the 9/11 attacks has demonstrated anything, it is that terrorist organizations such as Hamas will continue to ignore IHL with impunity. This creates an obvious asymmetry in the conduct of the war, but it is a reality with which the IDF must live.
There has been reporting that the Biden administration has insisted that Israel begin to think about possible political solutions for “the day after.” For years, Gaza has been a small strip of land inhabited by some two million people, most of whom are legally stateless. The view of the Biden administration seems to be that this situation is not sustainable in the long term, particularly after so much of the civilian infrastructure within Gaza has been damaged or destroyed.
This view, however, does not appear to be shared by the Israeli government. In a recent op-ed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu listed three goals that his government hoped to achieve through military action. They include the destruction of Hamas, the demilitarization of Gaza, and the deradicalization of Palestinian society. Recent reporting on current tensions between the United States and Israel has focused on the differences in what “the day after” might look like in Gaza. These differing views can be reflected in military tactics and the amount of collateral damage that is viewed as consistent with IHL.
Absent the complete obliteration of Gaza, it is unlikely that Hamas, an organization that is politically and militarily enmeshed within Gaza society, will be totally destroyed. Israeli military action certainly can significantly degrade Hamas’s capabilities and military necessity can justify actions to destroy Hamas’s military infrastructure, including its massive network of tunnels. But is the total destruction of Hamas militarily and politically an achievable goal? The demilitarization of Gaza is a goal well worth achieving, but absent a meaningful political solution that does not involve Israeli occupation of Gaza, is that an achievable goal in either the short or long term? Finally, it is difficult to see the path to the deradicalization of Palestinian society under the current circumstances.
On the other side of the ledger, how much of the current Israeli strategy is intended to cause sufficient pain and suffering to the people of Gaza so they turn on Hamas as the cause of the military conflict? Intentional infliction of damage on civilian populations is inconsistent with the principle of distinction, since civilian populations not directly engaged in hostilities by definition are not legitimate targets. Does the Netanyahu government believe that the only way to “deradicalize” Palestinian society is through the current tactics being deployed in Gaza? In either case, adherence to IHL requires serious efforts to continue to distinguish between military and non-military targets and to ensure that military necessity and proportionality judgments continue to be made so long as this conflict continues.
The Israeli government has been consistent in stating that it is prepared for a long war in Gaza. Since Israel’s stated goals will be extremely difficult to achieve in the short term, the logical conclusion is that the war will continue for an extended period of time. As the IDF tries to root out Hamas strongholds in an increasingly degraded urban landscape, it will become increasingly difficult to adhere to the requirements of distinction and proportionality. As capable and well-trained as Israeli forces are, urban warfare against a determined enemy for whom IHL is meaningless will continue to be an exceedingly difficult task, but one to which the IDF nonetheless must remain committed.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a non-partisan organization that seeks to publish well-argued, policy-oriented articles on American foreign policy and national security priorities.
- About the author: Jim Petrila retired from the Central Intelligence Agency in late 2018, where he practiced in the Office of General Counsel for 25 years. During his last several years at the CIA, he was responsible for the management and oversight of attorneys within the CIA’s Operations Directorate. Petrila served as Deputy Legal Advisor at the National Security Council from 2013 to 2015.
- Source: This article was published by FPRI
Note from Philip Wasielewski, director of FPRI’s Center for the Study of Intelligence and Nontraditional Warfare:
The conflict in Gaza is a classic example of irregular warfare, a form of warfare in which one side fights another to achieve political goals via indirect methods such as insurgency, subversion, and terrorism and the methods used by the other side to defeat that effort. For the terrorist group Hamas, the tactic of hiding amongst civilians allows it to fight the much stronger state actor, Israel, on almost an equal footing. Israel’s political goal in Gaza, to destroy the force that massacred its citizens on October 7, is complicated by both Gaza’s urban terrain and Hamas’ tactics. Hamas has ensured via its tunnel system under civilian housing, use of protected sites (e.g., hospitals, mosques, etc.), and refusal to meet the standards of lawful combatants (e.g., wearing of uniforms, adhering to the Laws of Armed Conflict, openly carrying weapons), that any military action against them will result in substantial civilian casualties. While losing many fighters and civilians in the tactical fight, its tactics may cause Israel to lose the strategic contest by turning world opinion against it and ending a peace process between Israel and various Arab neighbors.
Although the United States faced a similar problem of irregular warfare in an urban environment in Iraq, particularly with its own soldiers fighting in Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramada, and in Mosul in an advisory capacity, it has yet to face the sheer scale of urban warfare that Israel does now. The entire campaign is being conducted in urbanized terrain twice the size of Washington D.C., containing over two million people.
This is not a unique problem nor one that will go away for Israel or the United States. According to UN data, over half of the world’s population is urbanized and there are now over eighty-one cities with populations of over five million people. Furthermore, many cities and mega-cities in low-income countries consist not only of a large built-up central area but are also surrounded by sprawling encampments or suburbs that can cover a hundred square miles or more.
Therefore, Israel’s dilemma in Gaza today may become America’s dilemma tomorrow. The United States should pay close attention to determine what its military might have to do in a similar situation and refine its doctrine, tactics, techniques, and training for irregular warfare in an urban environment. Most importantly, the United States should consider beforehand what its strategy might be to deal with the conundrum that terrorists force the government into when operating in dense urban terrain.
As a beginning of the process to develop that strategy, James Petrila, a national security lawyer with extensive experience at the National Security Council, Central Intelligence Agency, and National Security Agency, has written the article above discussing the legal requirements and ramifications of conducting military operations in an urban environment against a foe that does not follow the Geneva Conventions and purposely imbeds itself within the civilian population. Understanding these requirements for a society guided by the rule of law is the first step in developing a politico-military strategy to fight terrorist forces embedded in a major urban area. Petrila’s work not only describes those legal requirements for the layman, but hopefully will also guide the future policymaker. The four basic elements of International Humanitarian Law—distinction, military necessity, proportionality, and humanity—that Petrila describes cannot be fully implemented unless the fighters on the ground have a strategy to guide them regarding a political end state, which will help them make decisions under the extreme stress of combat what is necessary, proportional, and humane.
As Clausewitz informs us, the trinity of war consists of primordial violence, chance, and reason. A proper strategy can provide armed forces with the reason and clarity to use violence for a political end and not for its own sake alone. Otherwise, a nation’s strategy to eventually end the war will be left to chance. The below article on the legal ramifications of fighting under such difficult circumstances can hopefully guide future discussions on this very complicated and emotional subject.
– Philip Wasielewski
There has been increasing talk about the potential restoration of a gold standard arising from people and governments across the world seeking to protect themselves from the weaponization of the United States dollar’s world reserve currency status. How long can dollar hegemony last when the government behind the dollars is sanctioning people and governments around the world with abandon? There must be a way out of this mess, and the many centuries long history of using gold as money points to one tried-and-true path.
Yet, there is also movement toward returning to the regular use of gold, and silver as well, as money inside America. In January, I wrote about a proposition, to be voted on in the Texas Super Tuesday Republican primary, that supports employing the Texas Bullion Depository, which began operations in 2018, to advance use of gold and silver as legal tender.
I mentioned then some reasons why people in Texas and elsewhere in America may be keen on returning to the use of gold and silver as money, writing that an affirmative vote on the proposition “could prove to be an important step toward enabling people to escape the inflation tax that comes with fiat money and the liberty destruction that a central bank digital currency would bring.” You see, dominance of the US dollar can be a threat to Americans in addition to foreigners.
On Tuesday, the vote was held on the proposition — Proposition 7 on the ballot. The proposition was supported by Texas Republican primary voters, obtaining a 76.5 percent affirmative vote. This should provide some pressure for action in accordance with the vote. In Texas, Republicans hold every statewide elected office as well as majorities in both chambers of the state legislature.
This article was published by the Mises Institute
Victoria Nuland’s retirement is an admission that Washington’s premier foreign policy project has failed. No government official is more identified with the Ukraine fiasco than Nuland. She was on the ground micro-managing activities during the 2014 coup, and has overseen the State Department’s sordid involvement since the war began. Her career-path is inextricably linked to the ill-fated NATO-backed disaster which has resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian regulars and the obliteration of much of the country. Thus, the question we need to ask ourselves is whether Nuland’s persistent machinations to drag NATO into an unwinnable war with Russia is the reason she ‘got the axe’, er, announced her retirement?
Here’s an excerpt from the official State Department Press Statement:
“But it’s Toria’s (Nuland) leadership on Ukraine that diplomats and students of foreign policy will study for years to come. Her efforts have been indispensable to confronting Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and marshaling a global coalition to ensure his strategic failure, and helping Ukraine work toward the day when it will be able to stand strongly on its own feet – democratically, economically, and militarily.” On the Retirement of Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, US State Department
This is an extraordinary paragraph that places the blame for the Ukrainian debacle squarely on Nuland’s shoulders. Yes, she was “indispensable” in leading the drive to confront Putin just as she played a critical role in “marshaling a global coalition” to prosecute a proxy war on Russia. And, what this statement tells us is that Nuland was one of the main architects of the ongoing conflict, which means she is largely responsible for the widening chasm between the NATO leaders, the mounting carnage on the battlefield, and America’s strategic defeat to its primary geopolitical rival, Russia. In short, no other government official is more responsible for the Ukrainian quagmire than Victoria Nuland.
Also, Nuland leaves behind a gargantuan catastrophe for which there is no apparent remedy and no easy way out. We cannot expect the Biden administration to simply ‘cut and run’ in what is perceived to be a direct confrontation with Moscow. Biden will undoubtedly press-ahead as a face-saving gesture regardless of the costs, further straining relations with the allies while handing-over large chunks of east Ukraine to the Russian army. This is clearly a no-win situation for Washington which is why (we think) Nuland –who created this mess– got her ‘Pink Slip’. Here’s more from the State Department’s statement:
“(Nuland’s) tenure caps three and a half decades of remarkable public service under six Presidents and ten Secretaries of State. Starting with her very first posting as a consular officer in Guangzhou, China, Toria’s had most of the jobs in this Department. Political officer and economic officer. Spokesperson and chief of staff. Deputy Assistant Secretary and Assistant Secretary. Special Envoy and Ambassador.
“These experiences have armed Toria with an encyclopedic knowledge of a wide range of issues and regions, and an unmatched capacity to wield the full toolkit of American diplomacy to advance our interests and values. ” (US State Dept)
In other words, Victoria Nuland is one of the most knowledgeable and experienced diplomats in the entire State Department, but –even so– they are throwing her under the bus during a time of extreme crisis because she failed in the biggest and most important assignment of her 35-year career. Isn’t that what they’re saying?
It is. You can be 100% certain that a combative street-fighter like Nuland would never throw in the towel unless she was explicitly ordered to leave. And, perhaps, she might have held-on to her job if there was any sign of progress in the war, but there isn’t any sign of progress. It’s as hopeless and dire a situation as we have ever seen. Even as we speak– the Ukrainian front lines are collapsing while the body count continues to rise. Ukraine is out-gunned, out-manned, and out-led. It’s a total mismatch and has been ever since Putin called up the reserves over a year ago. Young men are presently being slaughtered in droves and left to rot in mud-filled trenches that stink of gunpowder and death. All of this suggests that the end is near. And if the end is near, then someone will have to be blamed. Enter Nuland with a bullseye affixed to her back.
Nuland deserves whatever she gets. As a diehard Warhawk she has always played fast-and-loose with the facts building the case for war on half-truths and outright fabrications, all with the intention of plunging the country into another pointless bloodletting that would inevitably end in another humiliating defeat. She got her wish, and now she’s getting her comeuppance. Here’s a short clip from an article by author Karen Kwiatkowski who is equally curious about Nuland’s fake retirement:
Is her exit related to Ukraine’s ongoing collapse as a nation state or the imminent fall of Zelensky in another coup, or worse? Perhaps someone is planning another coup in Kiev soon, to try and stop the bleeding, and this time old Vic was not invited. Maybe the CIA is finally deciding to cut their losses in Ukraine, and she was collateral damage. Her replacement is former ambassador John Bass who oversaw the most excellent and well planned withdrawal from Afghanistan a few summers ago. It could simply be rats jumping off sinking ships. Tori was a key player in the bloody and corrupt Ukraine-Biden nexus; one hopes her sudden departure is more significant than just one big nasty murderous rat diving into the deep– may she lead the way for the rest of the neocon mischief. Bye, Bye, Victoria! Karen Kwiatkowski, Lew Rockwell
Nuland and her former colleagues, John Brennan and Hillary Clinton, have had a poisonous effect on our politics, elevating Russophobia to a state religion while dragging the nation’s reputation through the mud at every turn. In a Time magazine interview, Nuland boldly announced:
We will support Ukraine for as long as it takes. Ukraine is fighting for the return of all of its land within its international borders. We are supporting them, including in preparing a next hard push to regain their territory…Crimea must be—at a minimum, at a minimum—demilitarized.” Time Magazine
Nonsense. Is there anyone who still believes this load of malarkey?
“As long as it takes” probably means another 10 to 12 months at the most. By then, Washington will have withdrawn its support and shifted its attention to Taiwan. Bet on it.
In any event, we think that Nuland’s retirement is anything but voluntary. We think that she’s being terminated by foreign policy elites who no longer believe in her blustery rhetoric and empty promises of beating Putin. By removing Nuland they are acknowledging that the proxy-war has failed and that a different strategy is needed. And while we don’t yet know what that policy-change will entail, we do know that Nuland won’t be involved in its implementation.
One final comment: In a February 22, 2024 interview at the prestigious Center for Strategic and International Studies, Nuland was asked the following question:
“…if Congress doesn’t act (to provide additional funding for Ukraine)… is there a Plan B? Is the administration thinking about how it could get aid to Ukraine? Is there a way to get aid to Ukraine without Congress actually allocating the funding to do so?
Nuland: Max, we’re on Plan A. We’re on Plan A. And, frankly, you know, the U.S. Senate just passed this bill with 70 votes. So that tells you that the American people strongly support continuing to help Ukraine, in Ukraine’s interest but also in our own interest. So I think the question, as the House of Representatives goes out into its districts, what message are constituents giving to their members of Congress? And how are members of Congress understanding what the world looks like, and how they’re going to have to answer if they don’t support this funding? So I am an optimist on this front. I think we will get there. But I think the American people need to speak strongly to their members. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland: The Two-Year Anniversary of Russia’s Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine, CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies
Did you hear what she said? There is no Plan B. Either the US prevails in its proxy-war with Russia or what? Chaos? A Russian takeover of all Ukraine? The dissolution of NATO? What?
This is not the type of response that powerful foreign policy elites (who attended the interview) want to hear. They know that Ukraine is not winning the war, just like they know that Ukraine’s chances of success are extremely poor unless they get more money, more troops and more firepower, all of which are now seriously in doubt. They also know that the State Department has not convened any back-channel negotiations with Russia, so there’s no possibility of a surprise settlement either. And, now Nuland is telling them that neither she nor her colleagues have formulated a back-up plan in the event the war doesn’t turn out as they had anticipated. No Plan B.
This is unbelievable. Nuland is either supremely arrogant or criminally negligent, one or the other. Whichever it is, we can understand why elite powerbrokers may have decided it was time to put the irascible Ms. Nuland out to pasture.
Regrettably, we don’t think that ‘changing the messenger’ necessarily means a fundamental rethinking of the policy. Even so, it is a step in the right direction. As America’s ‘air of invincibility’ continues to erode, and its moral authority collapses (Gaza), Washington will be forced to pull in its horns and ‘play nice’ with its neighbors. That day is fast approaching.
Finally, no matter how you look at it, dumping Nuland is a positive development. Savor the moment.
By Daniel Lacalle
The relentless increase in global debt is an enormous problem for the economy. Public deficits are neither reserves for the private sector nor a tool for growth. Bloated public debt is a burden on the economy, making productivity stall, raising taxes, and crowding out financing for the private sector. With each passing year, the global debt figure climbs higher, the burdens grow heavier, and the risks loom larger. The world’s financial markets ignored the record-breaking increase in global debt levels to a staggering $313 trillion in 2023, which marked yet another worrying milestone.
In the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections, the United States deficit will fluctuate over the next four years, averaging an insane 5.8 percent of GDP without even considering a recession. By 2033, they still expect a 6.9 percent GDP budget hole. Unsurprisingly, the economy, even using optimistic scenarios, stalls and will show a level of real GDP growth of 1.8% between 2028 and 2033, 33% less than the 2026–2027 period, which is already 25% lower than the historical average.
Some analysts say that this whole mess can be solved by raising taxes, but reality shows that there is no revenue measure that will fill an annual financial hole of $2 trillion with additional yearly receipts. This, of course, comes with an optimistic scenario of no recession or economic impact from a higher tax burden. Deficits are always a spending problem.
Citizens are led to believe that lower growth, declining real wages, and persistent inflation are external factors that have nothing to do with governments, but this is incorrect. Deficit spending is printing money, and it erodes the purchasing power of the currency while destroying the opportunities for the private sector to invest. The entire burden of higher taxes and inflation falls on the middle class and small businesses.
Markets never react to rising risks until reality kicks in. Risk builds slowly but happens fast. This is why governments feel so comfortable adding more public debt. Politicians think that bullish markets and low bond yields are a validation of their policies, and even when interest expenses rise to alarming levels, they just pass the burden onto the next administration. The result? Eroding potential growth, weaker productivity, and the destruction of the middle class through higher taxes and persistent inflation.
Debt crises happen. and governments never pay attention to the risks because they do not pay for the consequences. Furthermore, by the time a debt crisis happens, most governments will blame “markets” and short sellers.
The latest data from the Institute of International Finance (IIF) shows that the dangerous trend of rising debt has accelerated. A $15 trillion surge in debt over the course of a single year underscored the alarming pace at which the debt burden was escalating. To put this figure into perspective, it is worth noting that just a decade prior, the global debt tally stood at a comparatively modest $210 trillion—a stark reminder of the exponential growth trajectory that debt has embarked upon.
Developing economies are leading the path of this debt onslaught, with debt-to-GDP ratios reaching unprecedented heights. Emerging markets are following the developed nation trend, adding structural challenges and vulnerabilities as debt accumulation leads to the destruction of the local currency and diminishing confidence in the domestic monetary systems.
The implications of this debt binge are significant, including weaker economic growth and a danger to financial stability. At its core, the surge in global debt represents a fundamental imbalance—an imbalance between present consumption and future obligations, between short-term expenditure and long-term sustainability. Cheap government debt promises higher growth and better opportunities for citizens but only delivers weaker growth, higher instability, and an increasingly worthless currency. If you wonder why your wages are paying for fewer goods and services and why the middle class finds it increasingly difficult to thrive, blame it on money printing and public debt. It is eroding the purchasing power of your savings and wages under the false promise of growth and security that never arrives.
As debt levels swell, so do the risks of debt distress, default, and contagion. Debt is currency printing; the confidence in the purchasing power of the newly issued money slumps as debt balloons. Furthermore, a sudden loss of market confidence or a liquidity crunch in one corner of the globe can swiftly snowball into a full-blown financial crisis with far-reaching systemic implications. To think this will not happen in the United States is myopic and reckless. The interconnected nature of the modern global economy means that no nation exists in isolation, and the repercussions of a debt crisis in one area can reverberate across the entire financial ecosystem.
Beyond the immediate risks of financial instability, the long-term consequences of excessive debt accumulation are equally troubling. High debt levels function as a drag on economic growth, siphoning off resources from productive investment and stifling innovation and entrepreneurship. Moreover, the burden of servicing debt imposes a heavy toll on future generations, diverting funds away from infrastructure spending and saddling future taxpayers with a legacy of debt.
The end of the United States dollar will not come from external threats but from the irresponsible actions of its own government. Cheap debt is always exceedingly expensive.
- About the author: Daniel Lacalle, PhD, economist and fund manager, is the author of the bestselling books Freedom or Equality (2020), Escape from the Central Bank Trap (2017), The Energy World Is Flat (2015), and Life in the Financial Markets (2014) He is a professor of global economy at IE Business School in Madrid.
- Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute
By Mohammad Yunus
While palm oil has been acclaimed for its versatility and economic viability, it has also garnered severe criticism over its significant contribution to tropical deforestation. There is growing advocacy for deforestation-free palm oil, while alternative vegetable oils have also been proposed as substitutes.
Palm oil is a cornerstone of the global economy, with diverse applications spanning from food and cosmetics to biofuels and industrial lubricants. Unsurprisingly, the commodity has garnered favour among farmers in tropical regions for its robust market demand, high productivity and cost accessibility. Yet escalating demand for palm oil has engendered adverse effects on environmental sustainability.
Oil palm plantations in Indonesia have expanded from 4.7 million hectares in 2001 to 15.3 million hectares in 2022, yielding adverse repercussions on the environment and society. A 2019 study found palm oil plantations to be the primary contributor to deforestation, while also destroying habitats for endangered species, displacing indigenous communities and intensifying carbon emissions.
The drive towards deforestation-free palm oil and alternative vegetable oils has garnered momentum in recent years, particularly from European markets. Advocates of alternative vegetable oils contend that transitioning away from palm oil could mitigate deforestation and its environmental consequences.
Yet a 2023 study suggests otherwise. The study examines three scenarios, where palm oil utilisation is reduced by 25, 50 and 100 per cent in Indonesia and Malaysia, the largest palm oil-producing countries. Scenarios were also conducted for alternative vegetable oils, specifically soybean, rapeseed and sunflower.
While total greenhouse gas emissions remained nearly unchanged between these scenarios, deforestation was projected to escalate by 28–52 million hectares, as alternative vegetable oils require more land for equivalent production. Achieving ‘zero deforestation’ in the palm oil industry would lead to a 92 per cent reduction in emissions, underscoring palm oil’s potential in advancing sustainability.
Replacing palm oil with alternative vegetable oils might seem like a viable solution, but it overlooks the issue of unsustainable land use, primarily stemming from weak governance.
Patronage ties between local governments and palm oil companies have led to poor implementation and enforcement of environmental policies. These patronage networks create conflicts of interest, where officials prioritise profit over environmental protection and sustainability. Lobbying efforts by palm oil companies, enabled by close relationships with government officials, have hindered stricter environmental policies.
Corporations and governmental bodies must enforce ‘no deforestation’ policies across all palm oil production regions. Initiating a traceable and ethically sound supply chain is the first step in the right direction.
Incentive structures and mechanisms for accountability must be established to foster widespread adoption of environmental policies. Equally significant is improving governance — including bolstering land ownership rights for indigenous communities, advocating for agroforestry practices and promoting sustainable land management techniques.
Some interventions must be implemented to solve critical barriers. For example, efforts to strengthen communal land tenure for indigenous groups often clashes with the financial interests of palm oil companies and corrupt officials. Overcoming opposition to these reforms will require strong political will and grassroots advocacy from civil society organisations.
Sustainable techniques like crop rotation, cover crops and zero-burn farming require extra labour, resources and technical assistance. The associated costs and the lack of immediate benefits limit the economic viability of cash-crop farmers. Without addressing economic and political roadblocks, governance reforms risk remaining theoretical or confined to limited pilot projects.
Consumers are also pivotal in fostering demand for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil products. By selecting sustainable items, consumers effectively communicate the importance of sustainability to corporations and policymakers.
Yet some consumers are sceptical of sustainability labels and certifications, which they view as potential ‘greenwashing’ by companies. Environmental non-profits have also criticised vague or lax standards that allow certifications to be granted based on minimal effort. Assurance on the credibility of a product’s sustainability could be provided through transparent standards endorsed by a global multi-stakeholder alliance and regular audits by accredited third-party verifiers on criteria like pesticide usage, labour conditions and conservation impacts.
In April 2023, a multi-stakeholder dialogue in Indonesia proposed a moderate approach to realising deforestation-free palm oil, urging the government to align its policies with state mandates and key agendas — such as the FOLU Net Sink 2030, which targets a 60 per cent reduction in national emissions by 2030.
For farmers, requisite capacity-building measures include training and financial support. In Indonesia, district government association Lingkar Temu Kabupaten Lestari works with nine districts to encourage the sustainable development of strategic commodities.
This approach involves shifting from monoculture plantations like palm oil to various nature-based commodities such as coffee, cocoa, coconut and agroforestry by-products. The nine districts work closely with over 70 national and local networks in a spirit of mutual participation (‘gotong royong’) to sustainably oversee their jurisdictions through collective actions involving various partners.
To address deforestation, a collective endeavour encompassing governments, businesses, civil society organisations and consumers is needed. It is also important to transcend simplistic solutions, such as substituting palm oil with alternative oils, and adopt a comprehensive approach to sustainability that confronts the underlying drivers of deforestation while advocating for a fairer and ecologically sound future.
- About the author: Mohammad Yunus is pursuing a Master of Science in Biological Science at Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
- Source: This article was published by East Asia Forum
Categories