Day: June 14, 2024

By Aaron Sobczak

President George Washington famously warned against entangling alliances in his farewell address to Congress. However, now more than ever, it seems that escalations across the globe are tempting the United States to become increasingly involved in other countries’ dilemmas. American citizens and legislators must remember part of what made the American experiment so unique and resist those temptations. Here’s why.

The US defense budget is unjustifiable. In 2021, American;defense spending;totaled $801 billion—larger than the next nine countries combined. The Department of Defense (DOD) was recently given an;increased budget;of $858 billion, and to make matters worse, that money is being used inefficiently: the DOD recently failed its fifth consecutive audit, with about half of its;assets unaccounted for. The United States has among the highest;debt-to-GDP;ratios in the world and regularly runs massive budget deficits. This is currently possible because of America’s position as the world’s reserve currency, but that position isn’t a guarantee as the American dollar is being weakened by inflation and recession.

Let us not forget, either, the blatantly false narratives that brought American soldiers into an “endless war” in Iraq. US intelligence knew Iraq did not have so-called weapons of mass destruction, but the Bush administration pushed for a connection to be made. After all, a big bad villain is good for presidential approval ratings and reelection campaigns.

However, the downsides of that war—and of interventionism in general—have lasted long after the votes were counted. The so-called;war on terror;over the last twenty years has cost the American taxpayer upward of $3 trillion. For perspective, that’s around the yearly gross domestic product of France.

The debacle in Afghanistan was a similar story; only this time, the blowback was swifter and more direct. US agents funded mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan in an effort to weaken the Soviet Union. Many of these fighters were able to organize and effectively train precisely because of American funding. It turned into one of history’s biggest backfires when, once the Soviets gave up in Afghanistan, factions of the mujahideen went on to form a new government organization called the Taliban.

The United States, of course, was stuck fighting against the Taliban for decades until President Joe Biden finally pulled American troops out. America’s hasty (though necessary) withdrawal left billions of dollars’ worth of taxpayer-funded equipment that was either purposefully damaged by fleeing American soldiers or commandeered by Taliban soldiers.

The two examples of Iraq and Afghanistan are recent—and some of the worst—but are far from the only instances of the US government’s wasteful use of tax dollars to pursue unrealistic or dishonest goals overseas. Foreign aid programs are notorious for their ineffectiveness and inefficiency. In the long run, countries that rely on large amounts of American foreign aid are reluctant to wean off it, which can disincentivize them from diversifying their economies, providing incentives for investment, and respecting property rights.

Those countries ultimately find it difficult to modernize and sustain growth. With few measures to hold them accountable, corrupt regimes regularly misallocate foreign aid, leading to large amounts of money given in bribes or pocketed by government officials.

Most global events that affect the United States do so because American policymakers want it that way. America has strategic alliances all over the world because it has made them for itself; they didn’t just fall into America’s lap. However, the “America as the world’s policeman” narrative is outdated and unrealistic. Europe has a sufficient economy to take care of itself. The same can be said for South Korea and Japan. Most conflicts in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are self-contained and do not directly affect the United States.

While some might wish for a large American empire, thinking it will be able to keep evil forces at bay around the globe, the cost of such a policy is not justified—morally or monetarily—from America’s perspective, or from the rest of the world’s. If the United States wants to avoid continuous overextension and dangerous blowback, it would be smart to reevaluate its designs on world primacy.

• About the author: Aaron Sobczak holds an M.A. in Public Policy with an emphasis on International Policy. He has written for various outlets, and especially enjoys researching topics related to international law, American History, and public choice. He is currently part of the Mises Institute’s apprenticeship program. Aaron lives in Lynchburg, Virginia with his wife.
• Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute

One hidden transformation of the international system in the most recent years has been the hijacking of the G7 by Washington as its ‘kitchen cabinet’ in the transatlantic system. The G8’s ‘shrinkage’ to G7 in March 2014 following the coup in Ukraine was a defining moment that signalled that there wasn’t going to be any post-cold war peace dividend. The G7 that was conceived as a group of countries charioting the world economy ended up as the vehicle of big-power rivalry to preserve the US’ global hegemony. Isolating Russia — and lately, China, too —;;became its leitmotif.;

With the failure of the western project to isolate Russia, the G7 is meandering and lost its sense of direction. Italy, the G7 summit’s rotating host this year, has made AI a key issue in the summit. And Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni invited by an unlikely guest, the pontiff, to make an unprecedented appearance at the G7 event at the fashionable Italian hotel Borgo Enyatia to advocate for the regulation of artificial intelligence, a technology he’s called potentially harmful. Pope Francis was a chemist prior to entering seminary and will apparently draw on his scientific training to inform his stances.;Italy under Meloni’s leadership has increasingly scrutinised AI technology, and temporarily;banned ChatGPT;in March 2023, becoming the first western country to do so.;

Equally, G7 is desperate to go beyond a closed elite club of Western democracies by piloting an ambitious outreach and issued an unusually long list of invited leaders of the non-Western world to the summit. Aside Ukraine, Meloni has invited the leaders of India, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Algeria, Kenya and Mauritania to attend the meeting. What was the logic applied is impossible to tell.;

But this is realpolitik and G7 is hoping to bridge the ‘West vs. the Rest’ hiatus in the line-up over the Ukraine crisis.;In fact, the ‘outreach guests’ will witness tomorrow the nail-biting finale of a geopolitical drama, which forms the core of the G7 summit;;— the months-long attempt by the group’s leaders to make a decision on using dividends from frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s military needs.

To recap, as part of the West’s ‘sanctions from hell’ against Russia in 2022, the European Union, Canada, the US and Japan froze Moscow’s assets in the western banks to the tune of $ 300 billion. (Some say, the actual figure is closer to $400 billion.) Only about $5-6 billion is located in the US, while $210 billion is stored in Europe, but the decision to use the proceeds from Russian assets was initiated by Washington with a hidden agenda to make Europe pay for the war’s consequences.;

Unsurprisingly, the European members and Japan opposed the US pressure;;to include a provision on the use of income from frozen Russian assets in the joint G7 statement to be adopted. The CNN reported on Monday that American officials are still trying to agree on the “most sensitive financial details” of the plan for Russian assets, since the G7 countries are yet come to a consensus and discussions are continuing as regards “the exact form of providing assistance, as well as guarantees for the return of these funds.”;

That said, don’t be surprised if the recalcitrant Europeans ultimately fall in line. There is no question that the G7 move to appropriate Russian money in western banks was bad enough but to use the profits out of them to fund the needs of Ukraine is, to put it mildly, an act of brigandage.;

The US gains if the current freeze in Russia-Europe ties reaches a point of no return, as Europe is sure to bear the brunt of Moscow’s retaliation. If the G7 adopts such a move, it will weaken the global financial system. By brazenly violating international law, the G7 will be setting a precedent that undermines confidence in European institutions.;

It will be interesting to see how the G7 leaders explain to the ‘outreach’ countries, drawn largely out of BRICS, that Russia is an exception and such a practice will not one day be used against India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia or some other state.;

To be sure, the spectre of the 16th summit meeting of BRICS at Kazan (16-18 October) under the chairmanship of Russian President Vladimir Putin haunts the G7. Moscow has let it be known that if the past three years ended with the expansion of the BRICS, the new phase going forward will ensure that the participants in an expanded format create a viable structure in which the member countries work purposively to develop a viable structure .;

An important topic at the BRICS summit meeting in Kazan will be the creation of a single currency within the grouping, which will significantly simplify and expand the economic relations of the member countries against the backdrop of mounting pressure from the West.;

Speaking at the SPIEF conference in St. Petersburg last week, Putin announced that such an independent payment system would be created. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later confirmed that a platform for payments in national currencies is being developed.;

The BRICS countries have realised that the creation of a single currency has become a necessity today due to the ongoing sanctions from the US and the European Union. Lavrov noted that “recent international events have thrown off the masks” of the West, which has tried to impose its own values on other countries under the guise of universal ones and replace equal dialogue with “narrow coalitions” that assign the right to speak on behalf of the whole world.;

BRICS, Lavrov underscored, implies a completely opposite type of partnership — that is, anything but a bloc structure, and on the contrary, a fundamentally open format, which involves working only in those areas that are of mutual interest to all participants, big and small.;Reports;suggest that around 30 countries have sought BRICS membership.

Meanwhile, in ‘systemic’ terms, G7 is entering uncharted waters. Far-right parties are storming the power centres of Europe. With an eye on the G7 summit,;Politico wrote: “Dream on. The G7 summit in the southern Italian coastal resort of Borgo Egnazia features arguably the weakest gathering of leaders the group has mustered for years.;Most of the attendees are distracted by elections or domestic crises, disillusioned by years in office, or clinging desperately to power.;

“France’s Emmanuel Macron and Britain’s Rishi Sunak are both fighting snap election campaigns they called in last-ditch efforts to reverse their flagging fortunes.

“Germany’s Olaf Scholz was humiliated by far-right nationalists in last weekend’s EU Parliament election and could soon be toppled himself.

“Justin Trudeau, prime minister for nine years in Canada, has spoken openly about quitting his “crazy” job.

“Japan’s Fumio Kishida is enduring his lowest personal ratings ahead of a leadership contest later this year.;

“And then there’s Joe Biden.

“The 81-year-old U.S. president’s son, Hunter, was found guilty of gun charges on Tuesday, barely two weeks before his father’s first crucial debate with a resurgent Donald Trump in a presidential campaign the Democrat is in serious danger of losing.”;

Above all, the angst in the European mind is palpable that if Trump wins in a democracy-altering climax in the November election, he may not even have time or patience to tolerate an archaic forum like G7. Surveying the bleak landscape, it comes as no surprise that Meloni took matters in her hands and decided to use the summit to her purposes by designing an agenda that cleaved to Italy’s strategic interests — Africa, migration and the Mediterranean.

• This article was published at Indian Punchline

By Can Kasapoğlu

1.;Battlefield Assessment

Russia made incremental gains;across multiple fronts;this week. In east and northeast Ukraine, the Kremlin’s forces launched an;increased number;of aerial and ground attacks in multiple areas,;such as;Pokrovsk and Kramatorsk. Positional clashes also continued along;several flashpoints, including;Kupiansk, Nevske, and the wider Bakhmut area. Mounting skirmishes were particularly intense in Siversk, according to the Ukrainian General Staff. Satellite imagery and open-source intelligence;illustrate howdelays and restrictions in Western military aid have been costly for Ukraine, especially in Kharkiv.

In several engagements, the Ukrainian military successfully employed mini drones against the;Russian;military’s heavy armor, but could not halt the Kremlin’s advances. In the south, Ukraine has managed to put constant pressure on Crimea with its Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). In a recent strike, Ukrainian missile forces destroyed Russian S-300 and S-400 batteries in;occupied Crimea.

The situation in the town of Chasiv Yar is deteriorating for Ukraine. With the;support of;elements from the 98th;VDV Division, the 200th Motor-Rifle Brigade, the 58th Spetsnaz Battalion, and a significant number of;first-person-view (FPV) drones, Russia has expanded its offensive around this critical town. Clashes in the southern sector have remained mostly positional, albeit with a more intense tempo,;resulting in marginal;territorial gains for Moscow.

While intensifying its ground assaults, the Kremlin has maintained pressure on Ukrainian civilians and critical infrastructure. Reportedly, Russian air strikes this week destroyed over half of Ukraine’s electricity generation capacity, causing significant power outages in Kyiv. Some assessments conclude that future attacks on Ukraine’s power grid could restrict the nation’s electricity supply to only;a few hours;per day.

In the meantime, Kyiv is;taking the fight;well beyond its borders. Open-source indicators suggest that Ukrainian Special Forces have been fighting alongside armed rebels in Syria since March 2024 to wear down Russia’s military overseas. Previously, Ukrainian Defense Intelligence (GUR) dispatched detachments to Sudan to prey on Russia’s Wagner private military company.

2.;Ukrainian Robotic Warfare Assets Hit Russia Again

Open-source intelligence suggests that Ukrainian asymmetric naval warfare capabilities, primarily unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), continue to press Kyiv’s asymmetric advantage against Russia. Satellite imagery indicates that the Russian Navy;moved its;Kilo-class submarine;Rostov-on-Don;to a new hidden location in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. Able to launch Kalibr cruise missiles, the Kilo-class submarine is an important asset in Russian strike packages. In September 2023, the submarine fell victim to Ukrainian strikes using French and British Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Reports suggest that Russia has;camouflaged the submarine;to hide it from further strikes, though the platform is not currently seaworthy and may be;beyond repair.

Meanwhile, Kyiv’s improving unmanned capabilities are now providing benefits in the land warfare domain. Ukraine increasingly deploys;unmanned;ground vehicles (UGVs) on the front lines to compensate for its lack of manpower. Reportedly, these UGVs now shoulder critical tasks, including kamikaze strike missions and mining operations.;The unmanned vehicles;can carry TM-62 anti-tank mines or up to 88 pounds of payload. Moving at a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour, these systems can remotely mine enemy positions and logistical routes with anti-tank mines up to three miles from their operator.

Kyiv also conducted two pinpoint strikes on key facilities deep inside Russia last week. In one salvo, Ukrainian long-range drones struck the critical Mozdok airbase, a facility that;hosts several;high-value aircraft, including Tu-22M tactical bombers, Su-24 frontline bombers, and dozens of military helicopters. In another strike, Kyiv hit a Sukhoi-57, Russia’s;most advanced fighter;jet, with a rain of drones. This strike, the first on a Su-57 since the start of the war, occurred hundreds of miles inside Russia at the Akhtubinsk airbase, showcasing Kyiv’s fast-improving deep strike capability.

To supplement its deep strike capabilities and robotic warfare resources, Ukraine is adding new assets to its asymmetric toolkit. News outlets reported that on June 3, Ukraine conducted a;large-scale cyberattack;against a network of Russian communications outfits, including Roskomnadzor,;Russia’s;state communications regulator. The attack also reportedly hindered the digital activities of significant government institutions, including Moscow’s Ministries of Defense, Finance, and Emergency Situations.

3.;All Eyes on the Coming NATO Summit in Washington

After Sweden’s announcement that it will provide Ukraine with airborne early warning and control aircraft, France announced it would send an undisclosed number of;Mirage 2000-5 combat aircraft;to Kyiv. This decision further augments the Ukrainian military’s assemblage of high-end weapons systems. The Mirage 2000-5’s ability to track multiple targets simultaneously and sophisticated air-to-ground strike functionality make it another valuable asset to complement Kyiv’s F-16s.

As Ukraine upgrades its warfighting capabilities, the upcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Washington will mark a critical milestone in the relationship between the alliance and Kyiv. News reports indicate that in July, the 32 NATO member states;will offerUkrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a series of security agreements in a multiyear assistance package intended to serve as a bridge to full NATO membership.

While some assessments suggest that Ukraine has a long road ahead in its journey to full membership in NATO, the forthcoming package will outline certain deliverables to accelerate Kyiv’s path to membership. Meanwhile, many member states have explored coproduction opportunities with the Ukrainian defense technological and industrial base (DTIB) to speed the country’s transition from a Soviet-vintage military to a Western fighting force.

The European Union is engaging in similar efforts. On May 6, Kyiv and Brussels held an EU-Ukraine Defense Forum to explore joint defense technology production opportunities. Just a month later, the Ukrainian Parliament;ratified the terms;for the Ukraine Facility, the EU’s four-year macro-finance support package to Kyiv. With its first €17 billion forecast for delivery before the end of 2024, the financial assistance agreement will provide Kyiv with €50 billion in total to help Ukraine implement the reforms and recovery needed for its accession to the EU.

• About the author: Can Kasapoğlu is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute
• Source: This article was published at the Hudson Institute

I have been writing for some time that Europe (and the U.S.) are in a period of alternate revolution and civil war. History warns us that such conflicts tend to be extended, with peak episodes which are revolutionary (as the prevailing paradigm first cracks); yet which, in reality, are but alternate modes of the same – a ‘toggling’ between revolutionary peaks and the slow ‘slog’ of intense cultural war.

We are, I believe, in such an era.

I also have suggested that a nascent counter-revolution was slowly gathering – one defiantly unwilling to recant traditionalist moral values, nor prepared to submit to an oppressive;illiberal;international order posing as;liberal.

What I had not expected was that the ‘first shoe to drop’ would occur in Europe – that it would be France that would be the first to break the illiberal mould. (I had thought that it would break first in the U.S.)

The European MEP election outcome may come to be viewed as the ‘first swallow’ signalling a substantive change in the weather. There are to be snap elections in Britain and France, and Germany (and well as much of Europe) is in a state of political disarray.

Have no illusions though! The cold reality is that western ‘Power Structures’ own the wealth, the key institutions in society and the levers of enforcement. To be plain: they hold the ‘commanding heights’. How will they manage a West edging towards moral, political and possibly financial collapse? Most likely by doubling-down, with no compromise.

And that predictable ‘doubling down’ will not necessarily be confined to fights within the ‘Colosseum’ arena. It will certainly impinge into high-risk geo-politics.

Undoubtedly, U.S. ‘structures’ will have been deeply disconcerted by the European election portent. What does the European anti-Establishment mutiny imply for those Ruling Structures in Washington, especially at a time when all the world sees Joe Biden visibly wobbling?

How will they distract ‘us’ from this first crack to their international Structural Edifice?

Already, there is U.S.-led military escalation – ostensibly connected to Ukraine – but whose objective clearly is to provoke Russia into retaliation. By incrementally escalating NATO violations of Russia’s strategic ‘red lines’, it seems that the U.S. hawks seek to gain the escalatory advantage over Moscow, leaving to Moscow the dilemma of how far to retaliate. The western élites;do not fully believe;the warnings from Moscow.

This provocation ploy might conceivably offer either a crafted image of the U.S. ‘winning’ (‘staring down Putin’), or alternatively, come to provide a pretext to postpone U.S. Presidential elections (as global tensions spike) – thereby giving the permanent state time to get its ‘ducks in lined up’ to manage an early Biden succession.

This calculus however, is contingent on how soon Ukraine implodes either militarily, or politically.

An earlier than expected Ukraine implosion might become the staging for a U.S. pivot to the Taiwan ‘front’ – a contingency that already is being prepared.

Why is Europe in mutiny?

The mutiny has arisen because many in the West now see only too clearly that the western ruling structure is no liberal project;per se, but rather is an avowedly illiberal mechanical ‘control system’ (managerial technocracy) – that fraudulently poses as liberalism.

Clearly many in Europe are alienated from the Establishment. The causes may be multiple – Ukraine, immigration or falling living standards – yet all Europeans are versed in the narrative that history has bent to the long arc of liberalism (in the post-Cold War period).

Yet that has proved illusory. The reality has been control, surveillance, censorship, technocracy, lockdowns and climate emergency. Illiberalism, even quasi totalitarianism, in short. (von der Leyen took things further recently,;arguing;that;“If you think of information manipulation as a virus, instead of treating an infection once it has taken hold;… it is much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated”).

When then, did traditional liberalism (in the loosest definition) turn illiberal?

The ‘about-face’ came in the 1970s.

In 1970, Zbig Brzezinski (who was to become National Security Adviser to President Carter) published a book entitled:;Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. In it, Brzezinski argued:

“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society…dominated by an élite, unrestrained by traditional values…[and practicing] continuous surveillance over every citizen;…;[together with] manipulation of the behaviour and intellectual functioning of all people;… [would become the new norm].”

Elsewhere he argued that “the nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organised life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”.;(i.e. Business cosmopolitanism as the future.)

David Rockefeller and the power brokers around him – together with his Bilderberg grouping – seized on Brzezinski’s insight to represent the third leg to ensuring that the 21^st;century would indeed be the ‘American Century’. The other two legs were control of oil resources and dollar hegemony.

Then followed a key report,;Limits to Growth, (1971, Club of Rome (again a Rockefeller creation), which provided the deeply flawed ‘scientific’ underpinning to Brzezinski: It predicted an end to civilization, owing to population growth, combined with depleting resources (including, and especially, depleting energy resources).

This dire prediction was imputed to say that only economic experts, tech experts, leaders of multinational corporations and banks had the foresight and technological understanding to manage society – subject to the complexity of;Limits to Growth.

Limits to Growth;was a mistake. It was flawed, yet that did not matter: President Clinton’s adviser to the UN Rio Conference, Tim Wirth, admitted the error, yet cheerfully added:;“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the ‘right thing’ in terms of economic policy”.

The proposition was wrong – but the policy was right! Economic policy was upended, based on faulty analysis.

The ‘godfather’ to the further pivot to totalitarianism (apart from David Rockefeller), was his protégé (and later, Klaus Schwab’s ‘indispensable adviser’), Maurice Strong. William Engdahl has;written;how;“circles directly tied to David Rockefeller and Strong in the 1970s birthed a dazzling array of élite (private-invitation) organizations and think tanks”.;

“These included the neo-Malthusian Club of Rome; the MIT-authored study: ‘Limits to Growth’,;and the Trilateral Commission”.

The Trilateral Commission however, was the secretive heart to the matrix.;“When Carter took office in January 1976, his Cabinet was drawn almost entirely from the ranks of Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission – to such an astonishing degree that some Washington insiders called it the ‘Rockefeller Presidency’”, Engdahl writes.

Craig Karpel, in 1977, also wrote:

“The presidency of the U.S. and the key cabinet departments of the federal government have been taken over by a private organization dedicated to the subordination of the domestic interests of the United States to the international interests of the multi-national banks and corporations. It would be unfair to say that the Trilateral Commission dominates the Carter Administration.;The Trilateral Commission;is;the Carter Administration”.

“Every key U.S. Government foreign and economic policy post, since Carter, has been held by a Trilateral”, Engdahl writes. And so it continues – a matrix of overlapping membership that is little visible to the public, and which very loosely may be said to have constituted the ‘permanent state’.

Did it exist in Europe? Yes, branches across Europe.

Here lies the root to last weekend’s European ‘mutiny’: Many Europeans refuse the concept of a controlled universe. Many are defiantly unwilling to recant their traditional ways of life or their national allegiances.

The Rockefeller Faustian bargain of the 1970s had one narrow segment of the American ruling cadre seceding from the American nation to occupy a separate reality in which they disassembled an organic economy to the benefit of the oligarchy, with ‘compensation’ coming only from their embrace of identity politics and the ‘just’ rotation of some diversity into corporate executive suites.

Looked at in this way, the Rockefeller deal can be viewed as a parallel to the South African ‘arrangement’ that ended Apartheid: the Anglo-élites held onto economic resources and power, whilst the ANC, on the other side of the equation, got a Potemkin façade of their taking political power.

For Europeans, this Faustian ‘arrangement’ degrades Humans down to identity units occupying the spaces between markets, rather than markets being the ancillary to an organic human-centred economy, as Karl Polanyi wrote some 80 years ago in;The Great Transformation.

He traced the turmoil of his era down to one cause: the belief that society can, and should, be organised through self-regulating markets. For him, this represented nothing less than an ontological break with much of human history. Prior to the 19th century, he insisted, the human economy had always been “embedded” in society: it was subordinated to local politics, customs, religion and social relations.

The converse (Rockefeller’s technocratic illiberal cum identity paradigm) leads only to the attenuation of social bonds; the atomisation of community; to the lack of metaphysical content and thus to an absence of existential purpose and meaning.

Illiberalism is unfulfilling. It says: You don’t count. You don’t belong. Many Europeans evidently now get it.

Which somehow takes us back to the question of how the western strata will react to the nascent mutiny against the International Order that has been accelerating across the globe – and which has now surfaced in Europe, albeit with diverse colorations and some ideological baggage.

It is not likely – for now – that the Ruling Strata will compromise. Those who dominate tend to fear existentially: Either they keep dominating, or they lose all. They see only a zero sum game. Each side’s status becomes frozen. People increasingly meet only as ‘adversaries’. Co-citizens become dangerous threats, who must be opposed.

So, consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Leaders in the U.S. ruling strata comprise many zealous supporters of a Zionist Israel. As the International Order starts to crack, this segment of structural power in the U.S. is likely to be uncompromising too, fearing a zero-sum outcome.

There is an Israeli narrative to the war and a ‘rest of world narrative’ – and they don’t really meet. How to arrange things? The transformative effect of seeing ‘others’ differently – Israelis and Palestinians – presently is not on the table.

That conflict has the potential to get much worse – and for longer.

Might the ‘Ruling Strata’ – desperate for a certain outcome – seek to fold (and try to conceal) the horrors of this west-Asian struggle within a wider geo-strategic war? One in which greater multitudes become displaced (thus dwarfing a regional horror)?

• This article was published at Strategic Culture

Despite the alarming struggle for control and influence among South African political parties, the African National Congress (ANC) headed by Cyril Ramaphosa has finally constituted a broad coalition government, contentiously designed to contain rising tension and to integrate rival opposition forces such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Inkatha Freedom Party into its fold.

However, expert analysis and narratives indicated that despite this first step towards advancing the main political and economic achievements of the ANC and the roadmap for sharing power in the next government, but at the same time, given the latest emerging political model in the country there are diverse internal and external implications for South Africa.

In this interview, Samir Bhattacharya, a research associate at Observer Research Foundation (ORF) discusses importance of the political reconfiguration and aspects of its implications. Bhattacharya also provides insights for understanding the common intricacies in the latest developments after the first parliamentary sitting on 14th June 2024 and South Africa’s relations with Southern African Development Community (SADC) and African Union (AU).; Here are the interview excerpts:

ls ANC slippery slope in South Africa’s politics is an expected evolutionary process?

Samir Bhattacharya: When the results of the seventh national election in South Africa were announced in May 2024, it was not shocking that the ruling African National Congress (ANC) had lost its absolute majority for the first time since its 1994 transition to democracy. It witnessed a steady decline in its share of the vote since 1999. However, every time, it managed to secure a majority. Last time, in 2019, it got about 57.5 per cent vote share. But this time, the vote share dropped abysmally low to 40.2%.

As of present, the African National Congress (ANC) has called for a coalition of national unity in which all parties are welcome to join and take part in governing alongside the ANC. It is anticipated that the cabinet posts will be distributed according to the number of seats each party won. Currently, the coalition’s members include the main opposition party, the centrist Democratic Alliance (DA), and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). The vote shares for the DA and IFP were 22% and 4%, respectively.

This may be a boon in disguise since it will force parties on opposing sides of the aisle to cooperate. Since each party represents a different set of electors, it can foster social solidarity amongst disparate elements of society.

Nevertheless, South Africa lacks a legislative or constitutional structure that would dictate the manner in which the proposed unity government must be constituted. Furthermore, the parties radically different and occasionally incompatible points of view may result in ideological conflicts and deadlock in policy. Moreover, if this gap grows, the coalition can disintegrate, leading to political instability.

As the current situation stands, what signals and implications of the latest development offer for South Africa, and generally for Africa?

SB: President Ramaphosa has undoubtedly received a startling reality check after the election result, as his party was not able to secure an absolute majority in parliament. Furthermore, this setback can have an impact on the stability or course of his government during his second term. The primary reason is that the ruling ANC, despite being way ahead than any of its rival parties, has lost its commanding majority and will depend on other parties to keep the government running.

Truly, the recent election of South Africa was quite chaotic, and it witnessed the proliferation of several new political parties. More than 50 political parties participated, highest number of parties fighting in the election in South African history.;While most of them wanted to topple the ANC government, except the four major parties, none even had any national level ambition or vision. They were mostly restricted to highly localised issues and expected to draw some blood from weakened ANC.;

There was no shared leadership or agenda among these parties. Additionally, they have incredibly different and frequently conflicting beliefs about governance. For instance, even though DA agreed to join the coalition, it;firmly opposes both the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill, which would provide universal healthcare for all, and the ANC’s black empowerment program, which aims to give black people a stake in the economy as a response to their exclusion during the apartheid era. Meanwhile radical Economic Freedom Fighters;(EFF) party and newly formed uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party endorse nationalising the country’s mines and seizing of white-owned land without compensation. The IFP, on the other hand, is a conservative, pro-Israel, pro-West party that is extremely hostile to the migrants.

Within the ANC, there are also internal divisions. The liberal lot, which has been the party’s main force since its founding but has now mellowed into a moderate social democrat fraction that currently has the majority, is more inclined to support business interests than to pursue drastic economic reforms. Forming an alliance with the official opposition DA is acceptable to this segment. But, the left wing, which has been historically moulded by the Tripartite Alliance between the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party, will attempt to exert more influence, either under Jacob Zuma’s leadership or through the radical leftist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), should either of them choose to join the coalition.

And what possible impact do think this would have on its future foreign policy, and considering at the fact that South Africa is a member of Southern African Development Community (SADC) and African Union (AU)?

SB: Foreign policy is rife with ideological divisions, just like domestic concerns. The agenda that the DA seeks is pro-Western. On the other hand, the recently formed MK party, led by former President Jacob Zuma, is anti-Western and pro-BRICS. MK and Malema’s EEF, in contrast to DA, both support Russia.

Moving forward, the next administration will need to give the country’s foreign policy issues serious attention, chief among them being the delicate balancing act between the West, China, and Russia. Despite being geographically distant, the metastasising war;in Ukraine has had a substantial impact on South Africa, particularly in terms of food security. At a deeper level, the incoming administration must develop a realistic foreign policy agenda that inspires confidence among investors. The main goal of South African foreign policy must still be to revive the country’s economy, but it must do it without openly favoring one country over another. Due to its close ties to all of the superpowers and the BRICS countries, South Africa’s nonalignment approach to international affairs is unlikely to alter in the current environment.;

In response, , external actors working with South Africa’s coalition government will be required to exercise some patience and remain flexible. In fact, given the extreme ideological division within, it would become increasingly challenging to adopt a coherent policy stance. However, they need to keep in mind that South Africa still finds strength in its democratic system, which remains a cornerstone of stability and inclusivity. Due to its participation in numerous international issues and membership in groups such as the G20 and BRICS, South Africa is a significant global player. It has lately surpassed Nigeria to become the largest economy on the African continent.

South Africa also plays a major role in a number of international platforms and problems. South Africa received international recognition for its action in January when it approached the International Court of Justice (ICJ), filing a case against Israel. But the DA’s alignment with Western perspectives, its backing of Israel, and its strategic uncertainty about the Palestinian cause might have a significant impact on South Africa’s foreign policy, especially with regard to Palestine. However, a partnership between the ANC and Malema’s EFF would bolster South Africa’s opposition to Israel and increase its voice in several international fora.

In conclusion, it goes without saying that the election outcome and its fallout will be closely watched not only in South Africa and throughout the continent but also globally. This uncertainty is primarily caused by the difficulties in interpreting any prospective change in South African foreign policy and whether the coalition government would significantly alter or reframe its stance and policies in light of various global occurrences. The functional elements of the coalition will become more apparent in the days to come. After all, the devil is always in the details. Nevertheless, this would be a test for South Africa’s democracy because a stable South Africa would be important for its citizens as well as for the rest of the continent.

“We love life if we find a way to it” is a quote from a poem by the famous Arab poet Mahmoud Darwish. In this poem, Darwish addresses life and death and explores how they are intertwined in surprising ways — the condition of having a way of life reflects the desire to survive and look to the future. However, when Darwish links life and death, paradoxes begin to appear.

Not every human being on Earth is alive. I do not mean life in the literal sense of a beating heart. Rather, I am talking about anything that brings life to a community, that gives people hope and helps them stand up and look forward to a better future. Every person finds their passion, their life in something. For me, my passion is an institution — the High Atlas Foundation. It is an institution that embraced and revived me. The project of hope this institution plants showed me how life can emerge from death and how construction can occur through destruction. These are paradoxes that reflect the complex nature of life — positive things can happen despite negative circumstances and hope can grow from the seeds of despair.;

When I received the news that I would join the HAF’s empowerment team and the program funded by Project Hope as a supervisor for children, I could not wait to tell my family. I wanted to tell them that I would be helping children heal from the trauma of the Al Haouz earthquake in September 2023 and would soon embark on my first field visit to Amizmiz. Specifically, I hoped to tell the person who gave me life, my constant companion, the pillar of our home, and my safe harbor — my mother. I imagined the happiness that would fill her heart. But when I arrived at our house and opened the door to our apartment, I found my mother sick. This sight struck my heart like a sharp arrow. Her features were tired, and her eyes revealed; pain. I brought her to the nearest hospitalI and felt darkness surround me when I heard what the doctor said about my mother —; she had broken her back.;

My joy turned into deep sadness, and I felt hopelessly lost. There was no room for joy anymore. The sight of my sick mother was not only a shock, but had a profound impact on my soul. Despair crept into my heart, and I was almost swept away by its strong winds. I stopped thinking about how to give these children affected by the earthquake hope because I was in dire need of a dose of it.;

I sometimes forget that every rule has an exception, including the rule that the one who lacks something cannot not give it to someone else. I find this rule unfair and simplistic. I refuse to accept that the person who has no hope is also incapable of giving it to others.;

Feelings are sometimes hidden between the lines of our lives, visible only to those who look closely. We all have a second life separated from our reality, which we live in silence. Sometimes it is not clear to those who know us, not because we are mysterious, but because our faces have become colored with professional masks that are almost impossible to decipher.;

Some written words can only be read by those who live between the lines and feel the things which are unseen to others. They are only read by those who have the extraordinarily emotional capacity to penetrate the external performances and find sincere internal realities. These people are often the soldiers of innocence — children.;

The children who survived the earthquake helped me rediscover life. I never expected that at their young age they would live through rocks cascading over the mountains and into their villages. Some of them became orphans, some witnessed the annihilation of their family and home, some became displaced overnight, some suffered post-traumatic stress symptoms.;

There is one teenager who, due to the trauma from the sound of the earthquake, urinates involuntarily whenever he is startled by the ringing classroom bell. Despite the various tragedies and cruelty that they experienced, the children came to the workshop with all their enthusiasm, as if they were casting off their sorrows at the doorstep before entering a new world of hope. Their hope infected me and inspired me to work to repay them. With all these differences in our situations, we were both able to change and bring joy to each other’s lives without realizing it..;

Children are armed with a beautiful stubbornness, and it is this that they ultimately gave me this from them. They were my teachers without realizing it. They taught me to “love life if we are able to find a way to it.” A person must often regain the stubbornness of childhood in order to be resilient throughout life, not only for themselves, but for every person for whom they are living.; Praise be to God who restored my sight after it was extinguished.

Our interpersonal relationships are not complete unless there is shared sacrifice, love, and passion. We live with each other. At our best, we try to understand each other. But not everyone is proficient in the art of reading between the lines. “Those who understand life deeply insist on being strangers to their social surroundings.” This is the price of profound knowledge, but there is no escape for people who bear this heavy burden. In most cases, they do not choose to perform this duty at first of their own free will, and then after that they realize that this work is beneficial to people, so their sadness goes away because, no matter how hard life is, we must strive to find a way to it.

(RFE/RL) — The United States says the State Department played no role in a project by a Ukrainian NGO, Data Journalism Agency, which says it has come under pressure after publishing research on individuals who have campaigned to end aid to Ukraine.

Data Journalism Agency, also known as Texty, published on June 6 what it said was an analysis of the political, media, and expert environment in the United States that is “influencing decisions” on further support for Ukraine in the Russian-Ukrainian war.

The project was done “independently and solely with the support of our readers,”;it said, noting Texty was supported by leading journalists and news outlets from the Ukrainian media association Mediarukh.

Since the publication of its research, the agency said it had come under “unprecedented pressure, manipulation, slander, demands to strip us of donor funding, and threats of physical violence that we have faced following the publication of our research.”

Amid the backlash, several conservative media outlets said Data Journalism Agency had created a “hate list” of U.S. citizens and that the agency was affiliated with the U.S. government.

U.S. Senator J.D. Vance (Republican-Ohio) and Representative Matt Gaetz (Republican-Florida) called on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to send information about the Ukrainian NGO by June 28.

They also asked the House Appropriations Committee to end any possible U.S. support being received by the Data Journalism Agency.

A statement issued late on June 14 by the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv ruled out any role of the State Department in the project.

“The State Department did not have any role or participation in the mentioned project,” the statement given to RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service said.

The Data Journalism Agency currently has a U.S.-funded subgrant through the National Democratic Institute (NDI). The Data Journalism Agency is also currently a subcontractor under the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and United Kingdom Agency for International Development (UKAID).

The two agencies fund the Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services (TAPAS);program, USAID told RFE/RL in an e-mail response to a question.

TAPAS is an eight-year, $53 million anti-corruption program in Ukraine to develop online tools that improve government transparency and accountability in the area of procurement of goods and public services — areas that have historically been rife with corruption.

TAPAS is the largest investor in the IT infrastructure of the e-procurement system Prozorro, an electronic public-procurement system through which state and municipal customers announce tenders to purchase goods and services, and through which businesses compete to become a state supplier.

Some U.S. Republican lawmakers have complained about corruption in Ukraine and cited that as one reason for holding back aid.

Eurasia Foundation, a partner of TAPAS, said TAPAS rapidly redesigned its project to meet wartime needs after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukaine in 2022.

The NDI said in a statement to RFE/RL it had worked with the Data Journalism Agency on projects related to Ukrainian media but was not aware of the Roller Coaster Project — the report published on June 6 — until it was published.

Paulina Chavez Alonzo, a spokeswoman for NDI, said the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that has supported democratic institutions and practices around the world “did not provide any funds or support” for the creation, development, or publication of the report.

Debate over aid to Ukraine, which has been fighting to repel invading Russian troops since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, has raged in the United States for months, with a November presidential election looming.

Republican lawmakers in Washington — most of whom are allied with former President Donald Trump, the party’s presumed nominee for the election — for months stalled the approval of a $61 billion aid package while demanding domestic security matters be addressed as well.

Data Journalism Agency said it analyzed the arguments made by organizations and individuals in the United States who oppose supporting Ukraine and compared them with common Russian disinformation narratives, and “debunked these narratives with evidence and source references.”

“We do not label the subjects of this research as enemies of Ukraine, nor do we dispute or condemn their right to freedom of expression. We merely state the fact that they oppose support for Ukraine and that many of their arguments resonate with Russian propaganda narratives about Ukraine,” Data Journalism Agency said.

“We value and respect freedom of speech, a prerequisite for a democratic society. We reserve the right to present evidence, state facts, debunk false arguments, and compare them with those propagated by Russian propaganda worldwide.”

Popular right-wing American political commentator Glenn Beck, who was one of those mentioned in the research,;alleged;that Data Journalism Agency co-founder Anatoliy Bondarenko had attended a State Department public diplomacy program “to foment” revolutions in other countries and has ties to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an independent agency of the U.S. government that administers civilian foreign aid and development assistance.

The Data Journalism Agency defended its right to analyze information that is in the public domain.

“We view this campaign as an attack on freedom of speech and a display of chauvinism against the citizens of Ukraine,” the agency said.

Veteran Cambodian leader Hun Sen has disclosed that he recently had a meeting with William Burns, director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who was in Cambodia on an unannounced visit.

The former prime minister who is now Senate president posted on Facebook dozens of pictures of himself and Burns, apparently taken before and during their meeting on June 2 at his home in Takhmao town, near the capital Phnom Penh.;

Hun Manith – Hun Sen’s fourth son and head of the Cambodian military intelligence department – was seen attending the meeting, together with anti-corruption chief Om Yentieng and Dy Vichea, Hun Sen’s son-in-law and deputy national police chief.

In an earlier Facebook post, Hun Sen said that he had informed Burns that Cambodia won’t take part in the Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland this weekend, not because of; pressure from China but because the conference could not be successful without Russia’s participation.

Hun Sen has condemned Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

While not giving further details about the meeting, Hun Sen said that the main area of cooperation between Cambodia and the CIA was counter terrorism and “not against any country.”

Cambodia; has intelligence cooperation with other countries, he added, as this was a “normal course of a sovereign state.”

Hun Sen said in his Facebook post that he has had a working relationship with the CIA management since 1997 and met in person with some of the agency’s heads, including James Clapper and David Petraeus.

David Hutt, a research fellow at the Central European Institute of Asian Studies, said he suspected the latest meeting was about; Chinese-run online scam operations in Southeast Asia that the U.S. now sees as a major security threat.

A;recent study;by the Congress-founded U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) said that Cambodia, together with;Myanmar;and Laos, form the epicenter of the regional scamming industry that “target millions of victims around the world with illegal and unregulated online gambling and sophisticated scamming operations.”;;

As of the end of 2023, the annual value of funds stolen worldwide by these syndicates could be as high as US$64 billion, USIP said, noting that in 2023 alone, U.S. citizens lost US$3.5 billion to online scams run from Southeast Asia.

The United States is also concerned about China’s access to Cambodia’s Ream naval base.

A U.S. think tank, the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI), said in April that Cambodia appeared to have given the Chinese navy extended and exclusive access to the base. Two Chinese warships have been docked at a newly built pier at Ream since early December and recently took part in an annual bilateral military exercise.

In an interview with RFA Khmer service, AMTI’s Director Greg Poling said that the real value of the naval base for the Chinese military could be in spying, intelligence collection, and satellite tracking.

Cambodia has repeatedly denied that China has been allowed to establish a permanent base at Ream as that would be against Cambodia’s constitution.

The publication of the; photographs of the meeting, observers say, could be aimed at demonstrating balance in Cambodia’s foreign relations in the face of accusations by critics that Cambodia has become too dependent upon China.

By Brandon Yoder and Charles Miller

Only a few months from the 2024 US election,;polls suggest;former president and;convicted felon;Donald Trump will likely return to the presidency, armed with a more confident policy agenda and a more compliant policy team. Trump’s first term was filled with scepticism and alarming rhetoric toward alliances, but;little substantive action.

Trump’s;foreign policy doctrine;is;typically characterised;as a combination of isolationism and protectionism. The latter is irrefutable, but the former requires some qualification. Trump is indeed wary of US commitments to allies, reluctant to participate in multilateral institutions and highly critical of his Republican predecessors’ military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Trump favours;unilateral;US intervention on many issues.

Foremost among these is competition with China. Trump;recently pledged;to slap a 60 per cent tariff on all imports from China and heavily implied his commitment to defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion. Trump’s 2017;National Security Strategy;was largely an update of the Cold War containment doctrine, directed this time at China. Under a new Trump administration, the United States would;likely pressure;countries around the world to ‘pick sides’ in the growing;US–China rivalry, severing or otherwise blunting their ties to China.

One of Trump’s most consistent policy positions (dating back to;at least 1987) is that the US’ allies should pay their ‘fair share’ in exchange for security guarantees. In an;April 2024 interview, Trump said of US allies, ‘if you don’t pay, enjoy yourselves, but we’re not going to protect you … We’ve essentially paid for much of their military, free of charge’.

This dovetails with Trump’s blanket economic protectionism. In addition to the 60 per cent tax on Chinese imports, Trump has proposed a 10 per cent minimum rate on goods from;allcountries, including US allies. Trump may even use US security commitments as leverage, making them conditional on other countries joining the United States in isolating China. Trump sees even cooperative international relationships in;zero-sum terms;and wants the US to ‘win’ by getting allies to contribute more to collective security.

These two foreign policy strategies — pressuring allies to contribute more while also threatening to withdraw US support — are mutually contradictory and would create perverse incentives for other countries.

On one hand, making US commitments to allies conditional on paying more for defence both reduces the benefits that other states expect to glean from the relationship and raises their fears of abandonment by the United States. These abandonment concerns would only be;exacerbated;by Trump’s;famously unpredictable;decisions, his general;aversion to alliance commitments, and his propensity to falsely deny that allies’ spending commitments toward joint defence have actually been fulfilled. Indeed, this is;already occurring.

On the other hand, pressing them to join the United States in confronting China would force smaller states to place themselves at odds with a rising regional hegemon. Under Trump’s likely foreign policy, other states would face an unpalatable choice.

They can move into an exclusive and asymmetric economic and security relationship with the United States with little assurance that the United States will fulfil its commitments, while also jeopardizing their most important economic relationship and inviting Chinese reprisals.

States can also reject Trump’s terms and start to reduce their dependence on the United States for security, instead moving towards a closer relationship with China. Trump’s policies would generate strong incentives for the second option. If put in the position where their security is at risk and the costs of a US ‘protection racket’ are too high, countries will look to substitute, providing their own security as far as they can, but also transferring any remaining security dependence to China.

How might this play out? Consider the start of Trump’s first term, when he withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP was the;centrepiece;of former president Barack Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’ and was to be a mutually-beneficial multilateral institution that would coordinate a large group of countries into alignment with US geopolitical strategy for managing China’s rise.

But with Trump’s withdrawal, the remaining members of the TPP moved to;provide for their own interests;in the absence of the United States, forming an array of smaller regional deals that often included China, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. They have resuscitated the TPP in a modified form and are even entertaining the possibility of allowing China to join.

In the economic sphere, as US commitments under Trump became more tenuous and its demands more onerous, US partners;moved away;and closer to China. The same is likely to happen in the security sphere if Trump follows the course he has laid out for his second term.

There are obviously;limits;to how much current US allies can ‘decouple’ from their longtime patron and pursue their own foreign policy goals despite their dependence on Washington. But the flipside is that there are also limits to how much the United States;can afford;to withdraw its commitments if doing so would alienate allies and push them into China’s orbit.

About the authors:

• Brandon Yoder is Senior Lecturer at the College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National University.
• Charles Miller is Senior Lecturer at the College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National University.

Source: This article was published by East Asia Forum

Kremlin Dismisses Armenian PM’s Suggestion that Russia is Quitting South Caucasus  Asharq Al-awsat – English