Day: April 4, 2024

By Tim Donner

In the full year since he first emerged onto the national stage as the biggest political wildcard since Ross Perot, it was first assumed that Robert F Kennedy Jr. was likely to draw votes away from Joe Biden in the Democratic primary and weaken the incumbent for the fall campaign. But after RFK Jr. switched from Democrat to independent, the contours of the race changed, based on the notion that he might draw votes from both major party candidates in November, perhaps in equal measure. Then came the late March announcement of Kennedy’s running mate – and suddenly, everything changed again.

Kennedy had an open, unlimited field of known and unknowns from which to select his vice presidential choice. As an independent candidate without a party structure to involve itself in the selection, he was free to head in any number of possible directions. For example, he could have chosen another relatively centrist – and attractive – Democratic defector in Tulsi Gabbard. He could have gone the route of the No Labels party and picked someone identified with the middle, in the image of a Joe Manchin. Or he could have decided on celebrity for celebrity’s sake and chosen New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers, whose name was floated likely for the sole purpose of its shock value. Any of those choices would undoubtedly be somewhat attractive to skeptical, non-ideological voters seeking an alternative to Trump and Biden.

Instead, the 70-year-old son of the martyred senator and scion of the nation’s most famed political family did something few had expected. He tacked heavily left and selected a woman who not only is virtually unknown but has unambiguously identified herself as a committed leftist. One could hardly be more clear than calling yourself, as Nicole Shanahan has, a “progressive through and through.” Shanahan was familiar to those in the jet-set world of Silicon Valley, to be sure – but not to anyone else.  All you need know is that she donated $700,000 to support Measure J, a post-George Floyd Los Angeles County criminal justice initiative that defunded law enforcement and diverted local revenue to “alternatives to incarceration,” as per the New York Post. She also gave $150,000 to support the infamous George Gascón’s 2020 bid for Los Angeles district attorney and contributed $25,000 to Joe Biden’s 2020 victory fund.

But the most revealing contribution by Ms. Shanahan was $4 million to the RFK Jr. SuperPac. Is her selection all about money? Is the VP slot a reward for the millions she has already donated, or more about the promise of much more to come from Shanahan, ex-wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, whose net worth is an estimated $95 billion? And if this decision is only about the Benjamins, what does it say to voters about Kennedy’s priorities and financial capacity to run a competitive campaign? He knows he is not going to win the presidency – his support has crested at roughly 15% in recent polls – so the vice presidential choice is about as big a statement as an independent candidate can make. And this one was, if not big, certainly clarifying.

Consequently, Democrats are freaking out now that, in the opinion of most though not all professional Democrats, RFK Jr. will almost certainly draw more votes from Biden than from Trump. In 2016 and 2020, less than 50,000 votes in three states swung the election, so Kennedy pulling even five percent of the vote – assuming he gets on enough states’ ballots – could well be decisive one way or another. Even as his name is synonymous with Democratic politics over decades, talk of Kennedy being a plant or stalking horse for Trump has risen to just beneath the surface in leftist circles. Seriously.

Indeed, one of the weirdest political eras of all time just got weirder.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Now We Know

Consider the position of moderate independents – including the critical voting bloc of suburban women – and Republicans skeptical of Trump’s chances, animated by post-January 6 jitters about the upcoming election. Many in both camps have, over these last months, expressed admiration, if not outright support, for RFK’s outside-the-box thinking on many issues, most prominently regarding vaccines. Are those up-for-grabs voters likely to support a ticket that now includes a progressive with a similar worldview to Joe Biden? For so many who have been trying to unlock the mystery of Kennedy’s appeal and support base, the selection of a progressive hi-tech Californian to serve one heartbeat away from the president answers many a question about Kennedy’s true beliefs.

Perhaps Kennedy’s goal all along was to reform and return the Democratic party to its halcyon days of political dominance, when the standard issues of war and peace and the economy were prevalent. Instead, the election is animated by discussion about the confusion over Transgender Day of Visibility and Easter, or the right of a 12-year-old to change genders without parental approval, or whether we should ban gas-powered cars and stoves, and willingly turn the demand for more energy production over to Marxist Venezuela.

This new-look Kennedy campaign has Democrats reeling – or most of them, anyway. Clinton-era provocateur Paul Begala, in a Politico article entitled “RFK Jr.’s VP pick is a missile aimed at Biden,” regrets the selection of an established progressive and laments that “Kennedy’s name couldn’t be more blue if it were Democrat McDonkeyface.” He then put it all in perspective by asking, “Put the shoe on the other foot: Would a third party candidate named Trump or Reagan have instant appeal with Republicans?”

Ever the fly in the Democratic ointment, the colorful James Carville, currently under fire among progressives for his remarks about “preachy females,” begged to differ from conventional wisdom: “I actually think Bobby Kennedy might hurt Trump more,” Carville told MSNBC, based on a factor that only he could effectively articulate: “I think there’s a certain percent of people in our country that are just like, ‘Just F the whole thing,’ and Biden is not gonna get any of the ‘F it all’ vote, OK?” he said. “Now what worries me is Cornel West and Jill Stein, because they’re going to get some of the ‘F it all’ vote, too.”. But as is often the case these days, Carville clearly represents a minority, contrarian view within the Democratic party.

So, whether Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is actually a full-on progressive, a leftist wolf in moderate sheep’s clothing, or a principled candidate desperate for funding, he has shown his cards in the eyes of the voters, and is now seen as a clear liberal/leftist alternative to Joe Biden. This means it is now four progressives versus one conservative in the race for the White House. It is not difficult to do the math and realize Robert F. Kennedy’s pivotal decision to go left could turn into Joe Biden’s worst nightmare.

• About the author: Senior Political Analyst at LibertyNation.com.  Tim is a radio talk show host, former candidate for the U.S. Senate, and longtime entrepreneur, Conservatarian policy advocate, and broadcast journalist. He is Founder and President of One Generation Away, LN’s parent organization.
• Source: This article was published by Liberty Nation

With its “war on terrorism,” the United States launched a global campaign against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as well as a number of other targets. The campaign probably created more terrorists than it killed. Moreover, U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq—the first with only a tangential relationship to al-Qaeda, the second with no connection whatsoever—killed a huge number of civilians as well.

Having failed to accomplish its poorly defined objectives, the United States eventually refocused on other national security threats. The “war on terrorism” disappeared from the headlines. Today, the world is more worried about the wars conducted by states: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s attack on Gaza, and the potential conflict between China and Taiwan.

But as the latest attack in Moscow demonstrates, some terrorist organizations are still going strong. On May 22, militants associated with the Islamic State chapter in Afghanistan attacked concertgoers at a Moscow venue, killing more than a 100 people. It was a shocking reminder of how vulnerable states can be in the face of determined non-state actors.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or Daesh according to the Arabic acronym) is perhaps the most prominent terrorist organization operating in the world today. It emerged from the wreckage of the U.S. war in Iraq and the civic uprising against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. For several years beginning in 2014, these radical Islamists managed to govern a vast swath of territory straddling Iraq and Syria. Though it attracted recruits from around the world, ISIS also attracted the enmity of a range of states that otherwise didn’t agree on anything else. After repeated attacks by these diverse states—the United States, Russia, Syria, Iraq—the self-declared caliphate collapsed in 2019.

Even without its mini-caliphate, the Islamic State persists. It still launches attacks within Syria and wields considerable influencein the huge al-Hol facility in eastern Syria for detained ISIS fighters and their families (along with many unfortunates who have no connection to ISIS).  It still has something of a foothold in Southeast Asia. Several groups in both the Sahel and in sub-Saharan Africa are still operating.

ISIS has also emerged as a competitor for power in Afghanistan against the Taliban. It is this franchise that reportedly sponsored the attack in Moscow. Russia’s role in bombing the Islamic State, intervening in Afghanistan, and historically repressing Muslim groups in the Russian Federation are all reasons for the attack.

The definition of “terrorist” is quite slippery. For instance, the United States and Israel consider Hamas a terrorist organization even though it functioned as a government in Gaza for more than 15 years. Ordinarily, former “terrorist” factions like the African National Congress in South Africa or the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland shed their “terrorist” status when they form governments. But neither Israel nor the United States recognized the victory of Hamas at the polls in 2006. Because it was not accorded the status of a legitimate political party, Hamas could not function as anything but a terrorist organization in the eyes of the United States and Israel.

Stateless people do not have the benefit of a national army to advance their aims. When Palestinians and Kurds and Kachins turn to the force of arms to defend themselves, outsiders are prone to label them “terrorists.” But their supporters prefer to think of these militants as “freedom fighters.”

ISIS is a different matter. It is not fighting for the freedom of an oppressed people. It is not trying to achieve a place in the international order. Rather, it wants to destroy the international order and replace it with a religious caliphate that doesn’t allow any freedoms at all. You can find religious states around the world: Iran, Israel, Bhutan, Vatican City. But these countries participate in the United Nations and tolerate the practice of other religions. ISIS does not believe in the modern concept of nation-states. It wants to resurrect a medieval model of governance.

The Moscow attack should be an opportunity for all the world’s nations to come together with Russia to condemn ISIS, much as virtually the entire world came together after 9/11 to condemn al-Qaeda. The United States and Russia don’t agree on very much these days, but they should at least see ISIS as a threat to their national security.

Unfortunately, Vladimir Putin seems determined to make the same mistake that George W. Bush did after 9/11. Like Bush, Putin is using the attack to advance his own ideological agenda. He has tried to pin the attack in Moscow on Ukraine—and Ukraine’s supporters around the world—even though there is no evidence of any such link. Ironically, prior to the attack in Moscow, it was the United States that provided intelligence to the Kremlin of impending ISIS activity. It did the same with Iran prior to ISIS bombings there in January.

Bush used 9/11 to advance the goal of regime change in Afghanistan, and then Iraq, so he and his team reshaped the story of 9/11 to target the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Putin, meanwhile, wants regime change in Ukraine, so he has repeatedly hinted that Kyiv and Washington are really behind the ISIS attack in Moscow.

Putin also wants to distract attention away from the domestic security lapses that allowed for this attack in Moscow to happen, just as Bush wanted to refocus attention away from the warnings it too failed to take seriously about al-Qaeda’s plans.

There is another disturbing parallel between the responses of Putin and Bush. When they appeared in court last week, the alleged perpetrators showed clear signs of torture. One of them was even carried into the courtroom on a stretcher. Several videos of this alleged torture have circulated on line.

So, too, did the Bush administration use 9/11 as a rationale for the adoption of “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding. These violations of basic international law have contributed to the erosion of global human rights norms.

It could get worse. Several prominent Russian politicians, like former president Dmitry Medvedev, have called for the return of the death penalty for the perpetrators. The Kremlin might extend such penalties to other “enemies” of the Russian government as well. This does not bode well for critics of the Russian regime, a number of whom have already died under suspicious circumstances.

The Islamic State, even though it has shrunk in size and influence in recent years, obviously remains a potent threat to the international community. It is a sign of just how weak this international community has become that it can’t overcome its divisions to focus on this common threat in the wake of such a tragedy

This article was published by FPIF and originally appeared  in Hankyoreh.

By Aditya Gowdara Shivamurthy

President Mohamed Muizzu, in a recent interview, called India to be the Maldives’ closest ally. This comment comes when Muizzu’s government is discussing a Free Trade Agreement with Türkiye and has signed a defence pact with China. These confusing signals raise several questions about the direction and intent of Muizzu’s foreign policy.

Four months in power, Muizzu’s policy seems to follow a three-step roadmap: diminish dependence on India, double down on cooperation with China, and diversify relations with other countries. The policy is a compromise between ideology, domestic politics, and geopolitical maneuvering.

Understanding the roadmap

Muizzu’s India policy tries to live up to the legacy of the “India Out” campaign. His actions to reduce relations with India are justified with the rhetoric of “respecting sovereignty” and making Maldives a “self-reliant” nation. Multiple factors are contributing to this nationalistic posture: one, by reducing relations with India, he wants to convey a message to the public that, unlike his predecessors, he has managed to protect and uphold the country’s sovereignty and make it self-reliant. There is an expectation that such narrative and posturing will win him a majority in the parliamentary elections due in April. Second, an anti-India policy will be able to woo support and votes from Islamists, hardliners, and some sections of the society who had coordinated with Muizzu’s Progressive Alliance for the India Out campaign and deem India to be a threat to Islam and the Maldives. Third, Chinese assurances and assistance are incentivising Muizzu to move away from India.

On the other hand, Muizzu is keen on expanding the country’s relations with China. The keen interest in reducing dependency on India and the Progressive Alliance’s strong leadership connection with the Communist Party of China has pushed the government to have close relations with Beijing. Muizzu also enjoys a personal relationship with China since his days as the housing minister. The Progressive Alliance also deems China “pro-efficient” for completing projects on time. Timely completion of the projects and China’s ability to invest and economically assist the Maldives will likely help Muizzu fulfill his electoral promises.

Leveraging the country’s geostrategic importance, the Maldives is also diversifying its relations with other countries, especially from the Middle East and the West. This diversification is for two reasons: to promote capacity building and to further economic interests and investments. Two, to increase its agency in a way that reduces dependence on India, looks for new partners other than China, and does not antagonise India completely.

Defence cooperation 

Historically, India has been the Maldives’ biggest defence partner. The three aircraft donated and operated by Indian and Indian troops were involved in the country’s HADR operations, EEZ patrolling, search and rescue missions, and medical evacuations. Over 600 such operations were conducted in the last five years. But, Muizzu is minimizing India’s role. The operations of these aircraft are on hold till the Indian troops are replaced by private operators. The government has also started an air ambulance system for medical evacuations. The Maldives has also declined to renew its hydrography agreement with India following its expiration in June and has remained absent from the Colombo Security Conclave. But, its participation in the Dosti Exercise indicates that it would like to keep defence cooperation with India to the bare minimum.

Muizzu is keen on strengthening the Maldives’ defence capabilities with other “friendly nations.” He has urged to increase the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF)’s vessels, land vehicles, and Coast Guard capacity. With China, the Maldives has signed the Global Security Initiative to deepen cooperation against traditional and non-traditional challenges. Both countries also signed a defence pact where Beijing will provide non-lethal weapons, and train the MNDF personnel for free. The docking of the Chinese research vessel/ spy ship, Xiang Yang Hong 03, in the Maldives has further increased suspicion of China cooperating with the Muizzu government to militarise the Indian Ocean Region.

Türkiye has also emerged as a crucial defence partner. Maldives has signed a US $37 million agreement with Türkiye to buy several drones. The drones, part of the country’s first-ever Air Corps, will be patrolling and conducting surveillance of the EEZ. Türkiye is also training the MNDF personnel to operate them and is providing these drones with grants and discounts. Besides, the United States (US) has also pledged four patrol boats for the Maldivian Coast Guard and is discussing the handling of an aircraft. Japan, too, is offering a US$ 6 million grant to provide a patrol craft and ensure maritime security.

Investments and development assistance: 

On investments and development assistance – India has offered a grant of US$93 million but has not undertaken any new projects. Some Indian High Impact Community Development Projects (HICDP) and mega-infrastructure projects like the Thilamalé bridge and Hulhumale housing projects have continued to progress. India has also finished a new runway at Hanimaadhoo Airport. Nonetheless, there is ambiguity concerning certain Indian projects. The Maldives government has remained tight-lipped about the Uthuru Thila Falhu (UTF) coastguard harbour and the Addu Police Academy, which were at the heart of their India Out campaign. Similarly, the EXIM-funded land reclamation and port project in Gulhifalhu has been moved to Thilafushi island, and the government has asked private and non-Indian investors to invest in the port project. It is unclear how India will respond to this, since the EXIM maintains that only Indian firms should be involved in port construction.

On the other hand, China’s role is increasing substantially. The Maldives has agreed to join the Global Development Initiative and revive the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) projects. In addition, China is offering debt relief on its loans for the next five years and offering a grant of US$130 million to renovate roads in Malé. It has also committed to building 30,000 housing units in Ras Malé, expanding the main international airport—the Velana International Airport, and undertaking a three-year commitment to maintain the Sinamalé bridge for free. There is interest in HICDPs by providing drinking water bottles, establishing desalination plants, and offering eco-friendly ambulances. In January, China and the Maldives signed several agreements to increase cooperation on blue, digital, and green economy, disaster reduction, marine cooperation, fisheries, health, and agriculture.

To diversify relations, bring new partners, and avoid alienating India completely, Muizzu is attracting investments from third countries. He has secured US$ 80 million from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for upgrading the main airport. Pan Pacific—a Thai firm will be building the US$400-600 million Thinadhoo International Airport project, and  Besix—a Belgian company will be developing the Villingili International Airport. Muizzu has also reportedly preferred The Arab Contractors—an Egyptian firm—over Chinese firms to construct the Addu city bridge. 

Trade and people-to-people relations 

The Maldives is promoting trade with other countries to reduce dependence on India. It has agreed to revive the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Beijing and is currently negotiating an FTA with Türkiye to reducetariffs on fish exports, enhance trade and cooperation, and import staple food like rice, sugar, onion, flour, etc. The government is keen on importing drugs and medicines from Europe and the US. The Saudi Council of Ministers has also decided to sign a trade agreement to facilitate trade and promote the fishing and tourism industries.

In terms of people-to-people relations, Muizzu has insisted on China retaining its status as the top tourist source. With the increase in direct flights, Beijing has secured the top position as a tourist source. On the other hand, Indian tourists have reduced by 33 percent—dropping from the top to sixth position, following the call to boycott the Maldives. China has also offered around a thousand scholarships for Maldivian civil servants, a large number of whom visit India for capacity-building programmes.

India is a popular destination among Maldivians for health services, and the latter are allowed to make insurance claims for undertaking health services and treatments. But, this scheme is now being extendedto Thailand and the UAE. In addition, the government has finalised air ambulance services with Sri Lanka, which enables the ambulances to take Maldivians to Sri Lanka for treatment. These services existed between the Maldives and India alone previously.

Muizzu’s foreign policy seems to have three objectives: reduce dependence on India, increase cooperation with China, and diversify relations with others. This approach is laying the ground for Maldives’ foreign policy for the next four and half years. However, it will be subject to some variations based on the outcome of the parliamentary elections in April.

---

• About the author: Aditya Gowdara Shivamurthy is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation
• Source: This article was published by the Observer Research Foundation

NPR News: 04-04-2024 12AM EDT

Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NPR Privacy Policy

Kirby Smart on Georgia’s Defensive Line: “I wouldn’t trade our group for any group in the country.”  Sports Illustrated

Oil prices increased on Wednesday after reaching five-month highs due to strong demand forecasts in the US, the world’s biggest oil consumer, and rising concerns over global oil supply routes in the Middle East, Azernews reports, citing Anadolu Agency.

Iran ramps up threats against Israel following consulate airstrike  POLITICO