The recent passing of former US President Jimmy Carter on December 29, 2024, has prompted widespread praise for his post-presidency humanitarian work. His efforts have rightfully earned him recognition as a peacemaker and global advocate for human rights. Carter’s efforts after leaving office earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. Democrats and Republicans alike have lauded them.
However, this acclaim should not obscure Carter’s presidency itself. Despite Carter’s declaredly moral stance, his administration was marred by contradictory foreign policy decisions.
Carter’s successes in and out of office
Carter’s presidency did have several positive achievements. His human rights policies resulted in the release of political prisoners in several countries. His administration pushed for nuclear arms control, notably through the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II (SALT II) treaty; although it was never ratified by the Senate, it represented a significant step in reducing the threat of nuclear war. Carter also worked to improve relations with China, successfully negotiated the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and avoided military conflict during the Iranian hostage crisis. Considering the tensions of the period, the latter was a remarkable feat. In 1978, he helped broker the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel.
After leaving the White House in 1981, Carter embarked on a path of active diplomacy, engaging in peace talks and humanitarian projects around the world. He facilitated efforts to eradicate the horrific Guinea worm disease in West Africa and spoke out against human rights violations wherever they occurred. His efforts to build affordable housing through Habitat for Humanity also demonstrated his long-standing commitment to social justice. This post-presidential work remains a cornerstone of his public legacy.
Carter’s moral compromises as president
Despite his achievements, Carter’s actions abroad during his presidency present a stark contrast to the ideals he later championed. His tenure from 1977 to 1981 was defined by a series of decisions that, though well-intentioned, often contradicted the principles of peace, international law and human rights.
Despite his moral rhetoric, his administration engaged in policies that enabled authoritarian governments and military dictatorships. Carter’s decision to increase military aid to Indonesia in 1977, for instance, is a glaring contradiction. Indonesia had invaded and annexed East Timor, and the Indonesian military was responsible for numerous human rights atrocities. Under Carter, US military aid to the Indonesian regime increased by 80%, with the provision of OV-10 Bronco counterinsurgency aircraft that killed tens of thousands of East Timorese civilians.
Similarly, Carter’s support for Morocco’s illegal annexation of Western Sahara and his efforts to restore military aid to Turkey after its 1974 invasion of the Republic of Cyprus stand out as decisions that were in direct defiance of international law and United Nations resolutions.
In addition to supporting authoritarian regimes, Carter’s administration failed to act on numerous human rights abuses happening around the world. One notable example is his administration’s stance on apartheid-era South Africa. Despite public condemnation of the regime’s racial policies, Carter vetoed multiple UN resolutions that sought to impose sanctions on the apartheid government. This failure to take meaningful action against South Africa’s occupation of Namibia and its apartheid system was a significant shortcoming of Carter’s foreign policy. It was only after Ronald Reagan succeeded Carter that the US government shifted to a more robust stance against apartheid. The move gained broad bipartisan support in Congress.
Carter’s handling of the Palestine issue further exemplifies the tension between his stated principles and his actual policies. Although he publicly supported the idea of a Palestinian homeland, he failed to openly support an independent Palestinian state and refused to even meet with Palestinian leaders. He failed to pressure Israel to stop expanding illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, even after the Israeli government violated the terms of the Camp David Accords.
Instead, Carter’s administration dramatically increased military aid to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s right-wing government. He dismissed calls for stronger action against Israeli occupation. In a particularly controversial move, Carter fired his ambassador to the UN, former Congressman and Civil Rights leader Andrew Young, after Young met with a Palestinian representative at the UN.
Carter’s policy toward Central America also reveals a troubling disregard for human rights. In El Salvador, the military junta waged a brutal campaign against leftist insurgents and civilians. Carter continued to provide military aid to the Salvadoran government despite widespread reports of human rights violations, including the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. Carter’s failure to recognize the severity of the situation and his continued support for the Salvadoran regime drew sharp criticism from human rights advocates.
Carter also authorized military aid to General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, King Fahd in Saudi Arabia and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Moreover, Carter’s covert support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan, designed to counter Soviet influence, contributed to the rise of Islamist extremism and laid the groundwork for decades of instability in the region.
As we reflect on his legacy, we should remember both the shortcomings of Carter’s presidency and the extraordinary contributions he made to global peace and justice in his later years.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” The recent passing of former US President Jimmy Carter on December 29, 2024, has prompted widespread praise for his post-presidency humanitarian work. His efforts have rightfully earned him recognition as a peacemaker and global advocate for human rights. Carter’s efforts after leaving office…” post_summery=”US President Jimmy Carter’s recent passing has led many to reflect on his administration and praise his post-presidential humanitarian work. Carter earned the Nobel Peace Prize for his post-presidency work, but while in office, he was no peacemaker. Carter’s foreign policy compromised his morals, supported autocratic regimes and failed to combat human rights violations.” post-date=”Jan 17, 2025″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Was the Great Jimmy Carter Really a Peacemaker?” slug-data=”fo-talks-was-the-great-jimmy-carter-really-a-peacemaker”>FO° Talks: Was the Great Jimmy Carter Really a Peacemaker?
The EU is going through a period of serious political, economic and social crisis. Governments are falling, growth is stalling, and divisions are deepening. Like in the US, polarization has risen in Europe. The established parties have failed to meet people’s expectations, and the far right is on the rise. Over the last two and a half years, the Russia–Ukraine War has unleashed inflation and caused great economic pain. This has exacerbated social and political divides, making many countries in the EU almost ungovernable.
The German traffic light coalition government of the Social Democrats, Free Democrats and Greens (respectively red, yellow and green) has fallen. So has the French minority government led by Michel Barnier of Les Republicains. Now, neither France nor Germany has a government or a budget. Note this has not happened before.
Social divisions and political polarization
Germany and France are the two beating hearts of the EU. They created the EU and still drive it. With both in political limbo, the EU is lost.
Internally, both these countries are no longer homogenous or cohesive anymore. They have experienced unprecedented levels of immigration. This has created problems of assimilation since, unlike the US, Europe does not have a tradition of mass immigration. In Germany and France, immigrants form a greater percentage of the population in the US. Furthermore, Muslim immigrants in these countries tend to be more conservative than the local population or even their relatives back home. For example, German Turks voted for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in much higher percentages than in Turkey. Many Muslim women also tend to wear headscarves in societies where sunbathing nude or topless is no longer a big deal.
Most people find change uncomfortable. Europeans are no exception. People do not like the way their communities are changing so rapidly. They may not be racist, but they want to retain their character. The French want to remain French and the Germans want to preserve their Germanness. Yet the political correctness that blights expression in the US also censors conversations in Europe. If someone is uncomfortable with headscarves or Turks voting for Erdoğan, she or he is denounced as a racist and an Islamophobe. People find such denunciation deeply alienating and often turn to the far right in revolt.
European economies are in big trouble
Economically, European countries are in trouble. They have huge debts, high deficits, slow productivity growth and low birth rates. There is no way Greece or Italy can pay back all their debts. Furthermore, the Russia–Ukraine War has increased energy prices, weakened industry and unleashed inflation in the economy. People are hurting. Naturally, they do not want to keep paying for a war with no end in sight.
In contrast, European elites have committed themselves to Ukraine’s defense. So, they want to keep spending on the war even as they seek budget cuts elsewhere. Naturally, legislators are unable to agree upon the cuts and governments are falling. At the moment, no resolution to the budget crisis in either Berlin and Paris is in sight.
The euro is not the world’s reserve currency. That privilege belongs to the dollar; so, unlike the US, Europe cannot print money to finance its deficits and prosecute endless war. So, Germany, France and the EU find themselves in a bind; their monetary and fiscal options are limited.
Europe has other problems too. Europe needs to increase the flexibility of its labor markets. Given an aging population, this can only happen with immigration and less rigid labor laws. The oppressive regulatory state is throttling growth and needs urgent reform. None other than German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called for a war on red tape despite his socialist roots. European countries also have to reform and even shrink the welfare state. Only British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ever really achieved that in the last 50 years in Europe.
European economies have also suffered from external shocks. Chinese demand has declined and the US has taken a protectionist turn under both Republican and Democratic administrations. This protectionism will only increase once Donald Trump takes charge of the White House in January.
At a time of such upheaval, European political culture is in total flux. The traditional left and right are dead in France. They have been replaced by a constellation of pro-business centrists, the far right and a hodgepodge combination of leftist groups. German politics is also fragmenting, and the rise of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) shows the degree of disaffection with the status quo in a country still haunted by Adolf Hitler. Something was not right in the state of Denmark and some things are certainly not hunky dory in Europe today. A full-blown crisis is now underway.
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” The EU is going through a period of serious political, economic and social crisis. Governments are falling, growth is stalling, and divisions are deepening. Like in the US, polarization has risen in Europe. The established parties have failed to meet people’s expectations, and the far right is…” post_summery=”The EU is in a crisis. Many countries have high debt and societies are polarized, causing increased political instability. Immigration has created new religious and racial divides. The Russia–Ukraine War has unleashed high inflation and deepened divides. With France and Germany without budgets and governments, the EU is in uncharted waters.” post-date=”Dec 09, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Why is the EU in Crisis? What Lies Ahead?” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-why-is-the-eu-in-crisis-what-lies-ahead”>
FO° Exclusive: Why is the EU in Crisis? What Lies Ahead?
In the 2024 US presidential election, Donald Trump won more decisively than he did in 2016. His victory reflects several deep issues within American society and politics, many of which have been building for years. The rise of Trump, and the success of his campaign, can be understood in the context of several major factors, including culture wars, economic pain, social media and foreign challenges. These dynamics have created deep divisions within American society that helped fuel Trump’s victory.
Identity politics and culture wars
One important factor in Trump’s success is the growing resentment among many Americans towards “woke” language policing. This refers to the effort to change language to be more inclusive, such as the use of terms like “Latinx,” a gender-neutral alternative to “Latino.” However, Latinos detest the term. Spanish is a gendered language where even tables and chairs are assigned a gender. So, “Latinx” came across as gringo imperialism to many of them and a majority (54%) of Latino men voted for Trump.
Many Americans, including progressives, find this focus on language divisive and unnecessary. For example, in Boston, one can hear complaints that the word “jimmies” (a term for chocolate sprinkles) is racist because it supposedly derives from “Jim Crow,” a discriminatory system of laws from the years of segregation. This kind of language policing is part of the culture wars and has alienated millions of Americans from the Democratic Party. Democrat social justice warriors do not realize the extent of the backlash language policing has caused, especially among socially conservative minorities.
The fixation on trans issues and the insistence that trans women are women is unacceptable to many Americans. Democrats have obsessed over trans issues as part of their social justice agenda. Allowing this tiny group to suck the oxygen in the room has alienated millions struggling to put food on their table.
Economic and social concerns, media and technology
Trump also won because discontent among working-class Americans is running extremely high. Many Americans, including recent immigrants, fear that immigration is driving down wages and increasing competition for jobs. Although inflation has decreased, food prices have continue to rise faster than real wages. This has led to greater economic frustration. High prices for childcare, healthcare, education, housing and housing insurance also weigh heavily on many Americans, creating acute financial insecurity.
This economic anxiety is compounded by a sense that the political system is out of touch with ordinary people. The Democratic Party is run by a managerial elite with few working-class leaders. Furthermore, Democrats have been trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. With war in the Middle East, when Democrats please Arabs in Detroit, they upset Jews in Philadelphia.
Working-class whites, especially in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, feel alienated. These voters have felt neglected by the Democratic Party’s shift towards identity politics and social justice. The Democrats rarely speak about the bread-and-butter issues faced by the working class. For this reason, they support Trump, who has championed issues like tariffs and border control. Both will put upward pressure on wages even if they cause a rise in prices.
Trump’s victory is also tied to changes in the media landscape. With the rise of 24-hour cable TV, social media and smartphones, Americans have been able to isolate themselves. Thanks to algorithms that create filter bubbles and echo chambers, most voters only consume information that reinforces their beliefs. They rarely engage with diverse viewpoints and have come to distrust mainstream media, which has become increasingly partisan over the years.
Furthermore, Russia’s efforts to spread disinformation, starting from the 2016 election, have succeeded. They have created an environment of distrust in the US. While Russia does not necessarily want Americans to support Trump, it certainly seeks to sow chaos and weaken confidence in American institutions.
America’s individualistic culture also plays a role. In the US, anyone’s opinion can be as valued as that of a leader or expert, making it easier for misinformation to spread unchecked. The combination of social media and distrust in the media has made it easier for Trump to connect with voters who feel left behind by the political establishment.
Globalization and social disruption
Globalization and demographic changes have also fueled divisions in American society. As immigration increases and the country becomes more diverse, new social tensions arise. A family of conservative Muslims probably does not appreciate the emphasis on LGBTQ+ issues, and they may turn away from the Democrats even if they detest Trump. So might many Latinos who are deeply Christian and oppose abortion.
The rise of global powers like China has added to these tensions. Many Americans are worried about the loss of manufacturing jobs to China and other countries. Trump’s promises to bring back jobs through tariffs have resonated with many working-class voters. While many experts argue that tariffs will increase inflation, these voters seem simply not to believe them, or else they feel that is a price worth paying.
Many Americans are also tired of increasing red tape. Under Trump’s leadership, the Republican party has focused on dismantling the so-called “administrative state” — the vast network of government agencies and regulations. Trump’s supporters believe that reducing the size of government will limit the power of elites and unleash a “sonic boom” in the economy.
Ideologues like Glover Glenn Norquist have long argued that the American state needs to shrink. The Trump team buys into this argument. It also belongs to the isolationist strand of American politics and wants a quid pro quo approach to foreign policy. The new policymakers do not believe in multilateralism, rules that act as fetters on the US, or in the need for allies or institutions such as NATO or even the World Trade Organization. America First is all about championing national interests boldly and unashamedly. This puts into question the rules-based order the US has championed since 1945.
The 2024 election reveals deep divisions in American society. Trump’s new picks reveal a drift to authoritarianism. The US faces choppy waters ahead.
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In the 2024 US presidential election, Donald Trump won more decisively than he did in 2016. His victory reflects several deep issues within American society and politics, many of which have been building for years. The rise of Trump, and the success of his campaign, can be understood in the…” post_summery=”Donald Trump won the 2024 US presidential election because Americans are tired of political elites and feel economically insecure. His campaign tapped into dissatisfaction with cultural issues like “woke” language and concerns over jobs, inflation and immigration. These frustrations, amplified by media fragmentation and global challenges, made his message resonate even more strongly than in 2016.” post-date=”Dec 07, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Why Donald Trump Won Again and What Happens Now” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-why-donald-trump-won-again-and-what-happens-now”>
FO° Exclusive: Why Donald Trump Won Again and What Happens Now
Since the global financial crisis of 2007–2009, the UK economy has faced severe challenges. These issues worsened with Brexit in 2016, which sparked significant political and economic instability. The COVID-19 pandemic further strained resources, leaving the British economy weakened and in need of strong fiscal direction. In recent years, political deadlock made it difficult for any administration to address these issues effectively, leading to a decline in public investment and economic growth.
Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, is now taking action. On October 30, she introduced a post-Brexit budget aimed at tackling Britain’s structural deficits while fostering economic growth. Reeves’s goal is to put the UK back on a steady financial path by raising revenues and directing funds toward essential services and infrastructure. Her budget includes £40 billion ($52 billion) in new tax measures alongside targeted investments.
The budget reflects two competing priorities: increasing growth by stimulating investment and balancing government finances. The UK has been operating with persistent deficits, and the outgoing Conservative government left Labour with a £22 billion ($28 billion) overspend, adding pressure to address the country’s long-standing issues.
Key budget measures
Reeves’s budget introduces a series of tax increases aimed at generating revenue to meet Britain’s immediate fiscal needs. The UK Treasury collects roughly £800 billion ($1 trillion) annually, but economists estimate an additional £20-30 billion ($26-39 billion) is required to achieve a stable economy. Reeves’s budget takes steps to bridge this gap.
Significant tax changes include:
- National insurance contributions: Employers will see increased rates starting in April 2025.
- Capital gains tax: The lower rate will increase from 10% to 18%, while the higher rate moves from 20% to 24%.
- Private school fees: VAT will apply from January 2025, and these schools will lose business rates relief from April 2025.
- Stamp duty land surcharge: The rate on second homes will increase from 2% to 5%.
- Employment allowance: Relief for smaller companies will increase from £5,000 ($6,400) to £10,500 ($13,500)
- Private equity taxation: Tax on managers’ profit shares will rise from 28% to 32%.
- Corporate tax rate: The main rate will stay at 25% for businesses with profits over £250,000 ($320,000) until the next election.
On the spending side, Reeves allocated £22.6 billion ($29.1 billion) to the healthcare sector and £5 billion ($6.4 billion) to housing investment. She also secured funding to extend the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway to London Euston, enhancing transport connectivity across the country. This investment aims to promote growth by addressing years of underinvestment in essential infrastructure.
Will it work?
Britain’s budget deficit and low investment levels echo the issues faced across Europe, with the EU also struggling to maintain competitiveness. According to Mario Draghi’s recent report to the European Commission, the EU’s investment rate of 22% of GDP is insufficient for sustainable growth. The UK has an even lower investment rate, barely surpassing 20% over the past 50 years, often ranking lowest in the G7.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has responded to this investment gap by prioritizing wealth creation. Speaking at an international summit, Starmer emphasized the need to attract private investment to support industries where the UK has a competitive edge, such as creative services, legal and accounting sectors and luxury manufacturing. Starmer has appointed an entrepreneur as investment minister to ease business relations and streamline regulation. However, some business leaders are wary of the government’s new interventionist policies and increased payroll costs. Executives of listed companies have been selling shares at double the rate seen before Labour took office, reflecting concerns over rising wages, expanded employee rights, and growing administrative burdens.
The UK’s attempts to balance its welfare state with economic growth will serve as a test case for other European economies facing similar post-globalization challenges. While the United States benefits from cheap energy and a flexible labor market, European countries, including the UK, must find ways to compete on the global stage with limited resources. How Britain navigates this delicate balance will be closely watched across Europe. If successful, Reeves’s budget could provide a framework for European governments to address similar structural issues, particularly as the EU faces its own struggles to adapt to global economic shifts.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Since the global financial crisis of 2007–2009, the UK economy has faced severe challenges. These issues worsened with Brexit in 2016, which sparked significant political and economic instability. The COVID-19 pandemic further strained resources, leaving the British economy weakened and in need…” post_summery=”British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has introduced a £40 billion tax increase and spending plan to address the UK’s economic struggles post-Brexit. Reeves’s budget aims to stabilize public finances while promoting growth, raising taxes on businesses, capital gains and private school fees. This shift could influence similar economic policies across Europe.” post-date=”Nov 07, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Rachel Reeves Delivers Important Post-Brexit Budget” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-rachel-reeves-delivers-important-post-brexit-budget”>
FO° Exclusive: Rachel Reeves Delivers Important Post-Brexit Budget
On October 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, gathering leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. These five countries make up the BRICS organization, which aims to reshape the global order to reflect their own economic and political interests. This year, Putin’s primary goal was to strengthen BRICS by proposing an alternative international payment system that would bypass Western financial dominance, particularly that of the United States.
The BRICS countries argue that the US and its allies have weaponized the global financial system. The dominance of the dollar, and to a lesser extent the euro, in international trade and finance allows the West to impose sanctions that impact countries’ economies deeply. For instance, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the US and its allies froze $282 billion of Russian assets held overseas and cut Russian banks off from SWIFT, a global system for cross-border payments. America also warned other countries’ banks of potential “secondary sanctions” if they supported Russia.
These actions have led several countries to reevaluate their reliance on the US dollar. Central banks around the world, especially in countries at odds with the US, are stockpiling gold and exploring alternatives to dollar-based transactions. BRICS members see this dependency on Western-controlled systems as risky and are eager to reduce it. China, in particular, views reliance on the dollar as a major security vulnerability.
The proposed solution: BRICS Bridge
To reduce dependency on Western financial systems, Russia proposed a new payment system called “BRICS Bridge.” This digital platform would allow BRICS countries to conduct cross-border payments through their central banks without relying on US-controlled networks like SWIFT. The concept borrows elements from a similar system, mBridge, which is partly overseen by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland, a prominent institution in the Western-led financial order. However, BRICS Bridge aims to challenge that order, offering a financial lifeline to countries facing Western sanctions and creating a more multipolar financial system.
Different visions of global influence
Russia and China are the main drivers behind the push for BRICS reforms, but their motivations differ. Russia seeks to create a sphere of influence that protects its interests and supports its allies through a flexible, transactional approach to international relations. This approach would allow countries to engage with Russia based on mutual benefits without subscribing to Western “normative” values, which Russia sees as biased.
China’s ambitions go further. Rather than just establishing an independent sphere, China wants to rewrite international rules, shaping a world order where multiple centers of power coexist, with China as a central authority. This would give China greater control over global trade, finance, and diplomacy, gradually replacing the US as the primary rulemaker.
Many countries in the Global South support BRICS because they see it as a pathway to a more flexible international environment where they can negotiate deals that directly benefit their economic growth. For example, India has reaped significant benefits from purchasing discounted Russian oil, prioritizing these economic gains despite the moral conflict posed by the ongoing war in Ukraine. In a multipolar world, countries in the Global South could avoid being tied down by Western rules and make independent decisions in their best interests.
However, this freedom comes with risks. Without a dominant Western power like the US to counterbalance rising powers, these smaller countries could find themselves vulnerable to regional giants, such as China, who may impose their will on them by force in the future.
The BRICS alliance reflects a growing dissatisfaction with the current global order. Critics argue that the US-led international system has become ineffective and no longer serves the interests of many countries, leading them to seek alternatives. However, BRICS itself has limitations. Despite its symbolic appeal, it has not achieved substantial progress on key issues like creating a global currency to rival the dollar or liberalizing global trade. The dollar remains dominant, and the influence of Western-led institutions persists.
Even if BRICS doesn’t have the power to immediately reshape the world, its existence signals a significant shift. Countries are increasingly interested in alternatives, showing that faith in the US-led system is waning. The BRICS alliance may lack the cohesion and power to fully realize its vision, but its popularity underscores a global desire for change.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” On October 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, gathering leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. These five countries make up the BRICS organization, which aims to reshape the global order to reflect their own economic and political…” post_summery=”Russia hosted leaders from BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in Kazan on October 22. Russia aims to establish a new payment system to bypass Western-controlled networks like SWIFT. Getting out from underneath the thumb of Western sanctions is part and parcel of Russia’s ambition to create a multipolar world where it can operate its own sphere of influence without interference.” post-date=”Nov 06, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Make Sense of BRICS Summit in Russia” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-make-sense-of-brics-summit-in-russia”>
FO° Exclusive: Make Sense of BRICS Summit in Russia
In the early hours of Saturday, October 26, Israeli forces officially attacked Iran for the first time in history. This attack was a direct response to Iran’s missile strike on Israeli territory that took place on Tuesday, October 1, when Iran launched 181 ballistic missiles against Israel. This marked a turning point in the long-running proxy war between Israel and Iran. For the first time, the two countries are now openly in conflict.
Timeline of escalations
The first significant event in this recent escalation occurred on April 1. On that day, Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria’s capital. This strike killed multiple high-ranking Iranian officials. Israel was targeting Iran’s growing influence in Syria and the presence of its leaders close to Israeli borders.
Iran quickly retaliated. On April 13, Iranian allies in the Axis of Resistance captured the MSC Aries, a commercial ship linked to Israel. Iran also launched direct attacks on Israeli territory. The Axis of Resistance, which supports Iran in its regional aims, includes Shia groups like the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces, the Syrian government, and the Houthi movement in Yemen. It may also involve Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas.
In response, Israel conducted limited airstrikes on April 19. These strikes hit targets in both Syria and Iran, signaling Israel’s willingness to counter any action that could threaten its security. After this exchange, tensions cooled temporarily. Both sides proclaimed victory, and hostilities reverted to indirect, proxy conflict.
The fragile calm shattered on July 31. On that day, Israeli operatives carried out two major assassinations. The first was Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah military commander, who was killed early that day. Shortly after, Ismail Haniyeh, the chairman of Hamas’s Political Bureau, was assassinated in Tehran. These targeted killings heightened tensions dramatically.
A few months later, Iran struck Israel directly. On October 1, Iran launched 181 ballistic missiles toward Israel, marking an escalation into open warfare. Israel’s response came nearly a month later.
In retaliation for Iran’s October 1 attack, Israel launched an extensive assault on Iranian targets on October 26. Dozens of Israeli warplanes traveled over 1,300 kilometers from their bases to target critical Iranian facilities. The strikes targeted Iranian air-defense systems, specifically S-300 radar and missile systems, as well as missile factories in three different provinces, including areas near Tehran.
Will Israel and Iran go to war?
Fair Observer’s sources suggest that Israeli leaders are planning further strikes. Potential targets could include Iranian oil terminals, missile sites, and nuclear facilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might consider targeting Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil terminal in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. Special forces from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) may also conduct further targeted killings, specifically against key personnel in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Iran has made clear that it wants to avoid a full-scale war with Israel or the United States. The US has played a significant role in trying to limit the scope of this conflict. American officials have issued warnings to both Iran and Israel, urging Iran to avoid any large-scale attacks on Israel while also advising Israel not to escalate the situation. However, the US no longer has as much leverage over Israel as it once did. Continued US military aid is not as vital, in Jerusalem’s view, as the destruction of Iran and Hezbollah’s ability to harm Israelis. They see Iran as weak and believe they must strike while they can.
Iran’s proxy forces, designed to provide a buffer around Iran and deter Israel, have shown limited effectiveness. These proxies can carry out attacks and spread fear, but they have been unable to inflict lasting damage on Israel, which has bolstered Israeli confidence. Despite occasional successful strikes, Iran’s allies cannot challenge Israel’s military defenses over an extended period. Iran’s regime knows that any sustained direct war would push it past the breaking point. Popular resentment against the regime for its repressive religious policies and poor handling of the economy is already high. If the Islamic Republic found itself on the losing end of a foreign war, it would topple.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu also has a precarious political situation. His coalition includes far-right members who advocate for reoccupying Gaza and restoring Israel’s biblical borders. He needs to maintain their political support in order to remain prime minister and avoid pending prosecution for corruption charges. Thus, Netanyahu needs to appeal to this faction, posturing himself as a strong leader capable of resisting Palestinian and Iranian threats. So, he is incentivized to be aggressive, whether or not it is in Israel’s long-term interests.
While Israel may enjoy short- to medium-term security through its aggressive actions, it faces long-term challenges. Its aggressive tack against Iran may push the Islamic Republic to develop a nuclear deterrent as its last defense given Israeli military superiority.
Further down the timeline, Israel faces a demographic risk. Its Muslim population now makes up more than 20% of its citizens, posing a challenge to Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. This trend could reshape Israel’s political landscape — as long as it remains a democracy — by gradually weakening the position of the Jewish majority.
Israeli leadership seems to think it can rescue the country from its precarious position by inflicting a sound defeat on enemies nearby and afar. It remains to be seen how far they will go and whether the gamble will pay off.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In the early hours of Saturday, October 26, Israeli forces officially attacked Iran for the first time in history. This attack was a direct response to Iran’s missile strike on Israeli territory that took place on Tuesday, October 1, when Iran launched 181 ballistic missiles against Israel. This…” post_summery=”On October 26, Israel launched a significant strike on Iranian air-defense systems and missile facilities in response to Iran’s October 1 missile attack. This marked a peak in months of escalating hostilities, which began with Israel’s April strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria and included retaliatory attacks by Iran and its allies.” post-date=”Nov 03, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: The Israel–Iran Conflict Is Getting More Dangerous” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-the-israel-iran-conflict-is-getting-more-dangerous”>
FO° Exclusive: The Israel–Iran Conflict Is Getting More Dangerous
Mario Draghi, former prime minister of Italy and president of the European Central Bank (ECB) from 2011 to 2019, recently submitted a highly anticipated report on European competitiveness at the request of European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen. The nearly 400-page report made headlines across Europe for its stark assessment of the continent’s economic challenges.
Why this report? Europeans are increasingly anxious about their future. Stagnating growth and a lack of innovation threaten the European way of life. As the global landscape shifts, Europe must adapt. Both the US and China have adopted protectionist measures and are aggressively promoting their domestic industries. Meanwhile, Europe has fallen behind. In 1995, European productivity was 95% that of the US; today, it stands at just 80%.
A significant part of Europe’s problem lies in its reliance on banks for corporate borrowing. In Europe, 75% of corporate loans come from banks, compared to just 25% in the US, which boasts deeper and more liquid capital markets. This gives the US a stronger growth engine. Europe lags behind in key sectors like artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, self-driving technology and other cutting-edge fields.
In response, Draghi’s report calls for a bold €800 billion “new industrial strategy for Europe.” This proposal represents a fundamental shift in economic policy and signals the end of the post-Cold War era of European economics. The report’s key recommendations include:
- A complete overhaul of investment funding in the EU.
- Relaxing competition rules to allow market consolidation in industries like telecommunications.
- Greater integration of capital markets and centralized market supervision.
- Joint procurement in defense.
- A new trade agenda for the EU.
- The creation of European Advanced Research Projects Agencies, following US models, to drive world-leading research.
- Raising investment by both the private and public sectors from 22% to 27% of GDP.
This marks a shift in the global economic zeitgeist. Industrial policy, long dismissed by free-market economists as inefficient, has become a central strategy for the US, China and now Europe. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and India are also pursuing industrial strategies with some success. It has worked for Europe before, as the success of Airbus demonstrates. Draghi and his team aim to make Europe more competitive while keeping it distinctly European.
There are still some flies in the ointment. Will European nations be able to integrate sensitive sectors like defense, banking and telecommunications? Can the famously divided EU countries overcome their differences and work together? And the most pressing question: Can the EC actually spend the €800 billion that Draghi’s report proposes?
Besides, isn’t this just more of the same old story — a push for greater European integration that will inevitably be resisted? This time, the stakes are different. Europe faces a crisis of competitiveness unlike any before.
The European powers are simply no longer as influential as they used to be. Individual nations can no longer hope to negotiate trade deals on equal footing with powers like China. They must negotiate as a bloc.
The world has changed. France and Britain have lost their colonies. Technology has changed. Volkswagen cannot keep up with Tesla in the electric car space. Europeans are afraid of slipping off the cliff into irrelevance.
Recent developments have convinced Europeans their position is precarious. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the failure to effectively integrate immigrants and the rise of far-right movements across Europe show that the European project itself is at risk, unless leaders can prove to their populaces that it can work for everyone.
This report, and the broader conversation it represents, could mark a pivotal moment in Europe’s future trajectory.
[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Mario Draghi, former prime minister of Italy and president of the European Central Bank (ECB) from 2011 to 2019, recently submitted a highly anticipated report on European competitiveness at the request of European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen. The nearly 400-page report made…” post_summery=”Former European Central Bank president Mario Draghi has released a 400-page report on European competitiveness. Europe is falling behind the US and China; innovation is stagnating and productivity is flagging. Draghi calls for a bold €800 billion “new industrial strategy for Europe” that will restructure the financial, telecommunications and defense sectors and pour funding into research while relaxing competition rules. Will the notoriously factional Europeans be able to come together in such a Herculean effort, and will it pay off if they do?” post-date=”Oct 01, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Mario Draghi Calls for a New European Industrial Policy” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-mario-draghi-calls-for-a-new-european-industrial-policy”>
FO° Exclusive: Mario Draghi Calls for a New European Industrial Policy
In the US, election day is just over a month away. Voters across the country — or, more realistically, in a small handful of swing states — will decide whether former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris becomes president.
To many observers, Trump, with his idiosyncratic leadership style and childish sense of humor, may seem silly. But it is a mistake to think that he does not represent a serious movement in American culture. Trump is the distillation, and perhaps the last gasp, of the values that were once dominant among white Americans: white supremacy, anti-elitism and an isolationism which is founded on the idea that foreigners are untrustworthy and really just not worth dealing with.
These voters see a new America composed of immigrants from Latin America and Asia, as well as groups that have been here somewhat longer like Catholics and Jews, as a threat to the white, Protestant America that they belong to and that traces its roots back to English colonists like the Pilgrims and the Virginia Company. They fear that these “newcomers” will be less resistant to ideas like globalism and socialism which, to them, are anathema.
Never before, at least since World War II, have the anti-democratic and racist components of American society been so close to winning power and threatening the basis of American democracy. Never before, either, has Russia (and perhaps China and Iran) been so able to influence the conversation in the US through disinformation and psychological operations.
Why do whites feel so disaffected? Racism is a factor, but so is the increasing gap in wealth that has many working-class Americans in the interior of the country feeling excluded. Social mobility is low, and universities have become elitist — racially diverse, yes, but largely stocked by the children of the wealthy. Meanwhile, staffers drawn from this elite, and not elected politicians, are the ones who actually draft the laws. Perhaps understandably, rural voters feel like they have to “take their country back.”
Yet if the wealth gap is the problem, Trump is the wrong solution. Trump represents a kind of protectionism and mercantilism that seeks to perpetuate the economic status quo. Harris, on the other hand, wants to increase the dynamism of the economy by moderately redistributing wealth. Capitalistic economies like the US tend to do best when capital is more widely dispersed. It is economic ossification — not foreigners — that are the real threat to white, working-class voters.
[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In the US, election day is just over a month away. Voters across the country — or, more realistically, in a small handful of swing states — will decide whether former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris becomes president. To many observers, Trump, with his idiosyncratic…” post_summery=”Former US President and Republican candidate Donald Trump is not just a loudmouth. He represents the deep concerns of a large part of the American population which feels excluded from power as America’s population grows ever more diverse. In many ways, the Trump vote is the last gasp of the white supremacy, anti-elitism and isolationism that once defined America.” post-date=”Sep 29, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Colossal and Historic American Election” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-colossal-and-historic-american-election”>
FO° Exclusive: Colossal and Historic American Election
Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militia, has suffered its worst week in its 40-year history. Hezbollah boasts a vast arsenal of rockets and increasingly accurate precision-guided missiles, and tens of thousands of fighters.
Although they belong to different sects of Islam, Hezbollah has solidarity with fellow-Iranian-backed Islamist militant group Hamas. In the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza, Hezbollah has targeted Israel with rocket strikes. They succeeded in displacing 60,000 Israelis from their homes. Since Israel is small and much of it is uninhabitable desert, this interdiction of a significant part of the north is a serious threat.
On September 17 and 18, Israel upped the ante and conducted a stunning operation blowing up thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah. At least 37 people died and thousands were wounded. One of the wounded was the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon. When Hezbollah called a clandestine meeting of 15 elite officers on September 21, an Israeli air strike killed off all of them.
The attacks demonstrated just how pervasive Israeli intelligence’s penetration into Hezbollah’s command control and communications is. Israel appears to have disrupted Hezbollah’s ability to coordinate itself. The militant group has so far failed to mount an effective response. Hezbollah operatives have launched many missiles, but they’ve been uniformly unable to penetrate Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system.
The devastating strike has called into question Hezbollah’s legitimacy as the most powerful force in Lebanon. Will Hezbollah risk total destruction by fighting a full-scale war with Israel, or will they decide to take the strikes on the chin?
What is the way forward for Jerusalem?
The Israeli strikes were a historic tactical victory. But will Israel achieve strategic victory? The present situation recalls Israel’s devastating 1982 air assault on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), then based in southern Lebanon. Israel succeeded in demolishing the PLO. But, in so doing, it created a power vacuum within a destabilized Lebanon that enabled Hezbollah to rise to dominance. Israel had replaced one Islamist group with another more radical one.
If history repeats itself, Jerusalem may not want to see what replaces Hezbollah. There is no telling what that would look like, but a post-Hezbollah Lebanese militia would likely be less technologically sophisticated and thus harder to infiltrate, as well as more desperate and thus potentially willing to use chemical weapons.
For Iran, the strikes are a wake-up call. Hezbollah was Iran’s insurance against Israel — the constant threat on Israel’s northern border deterred the Jewish state from being too aggressive against Iran. Now, Israel has shown this safety to be illusory and demonstrated that it is willing and able to kill Iranian leaders wherever they are, including in Iran itself.
If a hot war between Israel and Iran broke out, the Islamic Republic, which is already tottering due to internal strife, would probably topple. Still, victory might prove to be Pyrrhic for Israel. Since the start of its current engagement with Hamas, Israel has already seen its economy shrink by 20%. A larger war might leave Israel alive but just barely, impoverished and dependent on foreign protection.
[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militia, has suffered its worst week in its 40-year history. Hezbollah boasts a vast arsenal of rockets and increasingly accurate precision-guided missiles, and tens of thousands of fighters. Although they belong to different sects of Islam, Hezbollah has…” post_summery=”As Israel fights Hamas in Gaza, the Lebanese Islamist militia Hezbollah has threatened to open up a second front on Israel’s northern border. Israel has launched a decapitating strike against Hezbollah, disrupting its leadership using exploding electronics and targeted airstrikes. This has been a spectacular tactical victory. But, if the fighting continues to widen, will Israel be able to avoid a strategic defeat?” post-date=”Sep 27, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Middle East Tense as Israel Now Hits Hezbollah Hard” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-middle-east-tense-as-israel-now-hits-hezbollah-hard”>
FO° Exclusive: Middle East Tense as Israel Now Hits Hezbollah Hard
In this edition of FO° Talks, FO° Assistant Editor Elizabeth Tate sits down with Indian-American journalist Ankita M. Kumar to discuss the harrowing case of Dr. Moumita Debnath, a 31-year-old doctor found murdered at R.G. Kar Medical College in Kolkata. The brutal crime has sparked protests and outrage, but even more disturbing is the attempt by college officials to cover it up. Ankita delves into the details of the case, the protests by doctors, and the political implications for West Bengal, including the role of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Together, they explore what this case reveals about the state’s leadership, safety for women, and the need for reform.
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
FO° Talks: The Truth About the Rape Case That Sent West Bengal Into a Tailspin
In this episode of FO° Live, FO° Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Jaewoo Choo, a professor of Chinese foreign policy in the Department of Chinese Studies at Kyung Hee University, South Korea, and Haruko Satoh, a professor at the Osaka School of International Public Policy, Japan. The matter at hand is South Korea’s potential membership in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad.
The Quad is a grouping of four major Indo-Pacific democracies: the United States, India, Japan and Australia. It was relaunched in 2017 to counterbalance China’s growing influence by promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific through cooperation in security, infrastructure and trade.
Despite this ambition, the Quad faces significant limitations. Critics argue it remains a “talking shop,” where dialogue seldom leads to concrete action. Additionally, some members have limited bilateral experience working together, which hampers effective collaboration.
South Korea was notably absent when Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe first conceived the Quad in 2007. Abe’s vision was geographically focused; he pictured a rhombus with its corners in Japan (north), Australia (south), the US (east) and India (west). The idea was to cover ground and secure critical shipping lanes. This left South Korea, located in the middle, outside the equation.
Yet, South Korea has considerable strengths. South Korea and Japan, are the only two economic powers in the region that can plausibly compete with China in building infrastructure rapidly and at scale. South Korea is also a strong defense partner of the US, with a technologically advanced military boasting half a million active personnel — ten times the size of Australia’s. Moreover, South Korea is a leader in global industries like shipbuilding, memory chips and electric vehicle batteries, making it not just a regional player but a global one. Most importantly and obviously, it is a vibrant democracy. For all these reasons, it merits membership in the Quad.
The broader context is the growing security threat posed by China, which seeks to control sea lanes in the East and South China Seas and use its economic power to influence its neighbors. While it makes sense for South Korea to join the Quad, it is unlikely to make provocative moves against China, its largest trading partner and greatest military threat, without a security guarantee from the US. Ultimately, the Quad (or Quint) seems destined to evolve into a military alliance.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In this episode of FO° Live, FO° Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Jaewoo Choo, a professor of Chinese foreign policy in the Department of Chinese Studies at Kyung Hee University, South Korea, and Haruko Satoh, a professor at the Osaka School of International Public Policy, Japan. The…” post_summery=”The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, consists of the US, India, Japan and Australia. The four powers want to counter China but have had trouble finding a common direction. Including South Korea, a strong democracy, US ally and key high-tech manufacturer, could breathe new life into the group — but only if it is willing to accept that taking a hard line against China will involve forming a military alliance with security guarantees.” post-date=”Sep 13, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Live: Can South Korea Be Useful to the Quad?” slug-data=”fo-live-can-south-korea-be-useful-to-the-quad”>
FO° Live: Can South Korea Be Useful to the Quad?
If the near-assassination of former US President and Republican candidate Donald Trump did anything, it certainly made him a living martyr. The image of blood streaking his face as he stood, fist raised, against the American flag made his popularity skyrocket. It’s no surprise that Trump secured the candidacy nomination at the Republican National Convention soon after.
However, Trump took a hit in the polls when President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the new Democratic candidate. Harris’ replacement of Biden has fundamentally changed the dynamics of the election. A historical shift is happening before the country’s eyes.
Voter psychology is changing
The Marxist theory of base and superstructure can help define the shift. The base includes the modes of production that make up the structure of society. The superstructure refers to concepts not directly related to production — in other words, ideology and beliefs. Both the base and the superstructure continually bolster and maintain one another, and they are cyclically linked.
Harris managed to raise $200 million within eight days of the announcement. She has campaigned on policies different from Biden’s platform. All of this is the base of the election season. The superstructure, on the other hand, manifests in the changing psychological aspects of the voter population based on demographics, geographics and candidate perception.
With only 53% of the US population identifying as white — compared to the 89% at the country’s inception — the symbolism of Harris’ identity motivates different voter groups. She represents several minorities, as she is a black, South Asian-American female. It could be said that her popularity is reflective of democratization — leaders more representative of the voter population have a certain appeal.
Yet despite Harris’ success, Trump still remains popular among large demographics. Why? White, male and Christian populations have become increasingly aware of the shifting caste structure and their own loss of social power. Individuals within these demographics believe the identity of US society and government is at stake. Trump and his Republicans have taken advantage of this. They use racist attacks against Harris and her platform to appeal to the disenfranchised White voters.
The Electoral College might be a hindrance for Harris
While Harris’ entrance into the campaign has already garnered immense support, that support comes from populations geographically centered in already-blue regions. Harris simply gained “Back the Blue” voters previously discouraged by Biden’s campaign. Swing states remain unclear in their support.
Even if Harris wins the popular vote, it doesn’t guarantee a win in the Electoral College. Presidential elections in the US aren’t decided by a national popular vote like they are in France. Rather, US elections are determined by a college of electors from each seat. Every state has as many votes as it has delegates (two senators plus however many representatives) in Congress. Because of this, some states have more votes than their population would suggest.
Wyoming is the most extreme case. It gets three electoral votes because it has two senators and one representative. Yet the state’s 581,000 residents — less than 0.2% of the US population — control all these votes. Thus, a vote in Wyoming is 36 times more influential than a vote in California, where 39 million people control just 54 electoral votes. This means a candidate can win a popular vote but lose the electoral vote, leading to the loss of the presidency.
In practice, most states are reliably red or blue. California will almost certainly elect Harris, and Texas will almost certainly elect Trump, canceling most of California’s influence out. Thus, only a few states where Democrats and Republicans are equally balanced are likely to influence the election. And these states may well have different priorities than the rest of the nation.
A number of these states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — are in the “Rust Belt,” a former manufacturing zone hit hard by deindustrialization. Trump has been able to capitalize on the disaffection of these working-class voters in the past. It is thus little surprise that Harris has chosen Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of neighboring Minnesota who is popular among factory workers, to be her running mate.
Harris must reshape voter perception of the Democratic party
Narratives and assumptions attributed to a candidate can influence the electoral college as well as the popular vote. People’s perception of Harris has definitely improved the Democrats’ chances in swing states. This is especially true for policy-conscious voters who look at personal rights issues like women’s access to birth control and right to abortion. Harris has vocalized her support for policies that protect them, in line with the majority of Americans.
However, many voters fault Harris for the Biden administration’s poor handling of immigration. Biden had entrusted Harris with addressing the causes of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration, however, surged dramatically. In a televised interview, Harris spectacularly failed to explain herself to the audience, an embarrassment that caused her to retreat for some time from the public eye. As a presidential candidate, this reputation could hurt her chances in more conservative states, especially among laborers who are wary about being undercut by cheap labor from illegal immigrants willing to work below minimum wage.
Harris must change the narrative surrounding immigration, as well as the struggling US economy, if she wishes to secure the presidency. Simple demographics alone will not take any candidate into the White House. The future depends on both campaigns’ abilities to shape the public narrative.
[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” If the near-assassination of former US President and Republican candidate Donald Trump did anything, it certainly made him a living martyr. The image of blood streaking his face as he stood, fist raised, against the American flag made his popularity skyrocket. It’s no surprise that Trump secured…” post_summery=”US President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the US presidential campaign and subsequent endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy has shifted election dynamics irreversibly. Changing voter demographics and policy support has indicated that the US is polling in Harris’ favor. However, the geography of the electoral college as well as disenfranchised white voters may prove to be barriers against a Democrat win.” post-date=”Sep 06, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: New Twists and Turns in Astonishing US Presidential Election” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-new-twists-and-turns-in-astonishing-us-presidential-election”>
FO° Exclusive: New Twists and Turns in Astonishing US Presidential Election
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” is a diplomatic forum that includes India, Australia, the US and Japan. It’s an unusual grouping, since these four countries have little history of acting as a collective. However, some members have strong bilateral ties, especially the US with Japan and with Australia. India is somewhat of an outlier.
There is no clear agreement on the Quad’s purpose. Is it a group of friends, or a security alliance? If it serves any purpose, it’s because these democracies, neighboring China, feel the need to unite. While wary of China, they claim not to be forming an alliance to contain it.
If that is the logic, excluding South Korea seems illogical. South Korea, sharing a border with North Korea and with China nearby, is more vulnerable than any Quad member.
Why is South Korea not in the Quad?
It’s important to note that the Quad is originally a Japanese concept. Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe envisioned it as a platform for future economic cooperation. India, the US, and Australia were key trading partners for Japan, and protecting sea routes to them was essential. This required international cooperation.
From Japan’s perspective, this still makes sense. However, the broader purpose of the Quad has shifted. In 2017, the group “rebooted” and rebranded itself with the slogan “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” — opposing China’s attempts to claim the East and South China Seas as its territorial waters. But if that’s the goal, why exclude South Korea? Or, for that matter, countries like Vietnam and the Philippines, whose maritime sovereignty China threatens?
The AUKUS deal, which includes the US, UK, and Australia, further complicates things. It suggests the US and Australia are moving toward alliances based on cultural ties rather than democracy. Britain has little role in East Asia today, yet it was included while regional powers like France were not. However, Anglo unity doesn’t have to clash with democratic solidarity. The US and Australia could deepen ties with Asian democracies, and including South Korea in the Quad would be a vital step.
Why the Quad needs South Korea
South Korea is more than just one more adversary of China that could cooperate in military matters. Including South Korea is a matter of defining the Quad’s identity. If the grouping aims to be a significant regional actor, it needs to inspire a sense of purpose. Right now, it looks like a ragtag team with little justification beyond each actor’s personal interest. The Quad needs an identity. Democracy is the obvious defining characteristic of the grouping, but if that is the case, South Korea must be involved. If South Korea remain excluded, observers may wonder whether something other than democracy is the real criterion.
There some flies in the ointment, though. South Korea has strong security ties with the US but is economically dependent on China, its largest trading partner. Joining the Quad could strain this relationship, especially since China has a history of using economic pressure to influence political decisions. In 2017, China’s boycott over South Korea’s decision to host the US THAAD system heavily impacted South Korea’s economy.
Another issue is the historical animosity between South Korea and Japan, stemming from Japan’s 35-year occupation of Korea. Many Koreans still harbor resentment for Japan’s actions during World War II, though tensions have eased since Abe’s tenure.
South Korea is more physically threatened by China than any current Quad member. The threat of a Chinese or North Korean invasion overland is a real danger (and one that has already occured, during the Korean War). For Japan, an island nation, the possibility of a Chinese naval threat to the homeland remains somewhat more theoretical. So, South Korea may hesitate to take a strong stance on issues like maritime freedom. However, due to its ties with the US from the Korean War, South Korea is even more integrated into the US security network than Japan. Will it be willing to join an alliance likely seen by Beijing as anti-China?
For now, it’s unclear. But South Korea’s inclusion would make sense. Both South Korea and Japan have strong infrastructure development sectors and, together, could offer an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. What the Quad needs is a clear identity that other nations can buy into. Without this, it will inspire neither moral nor strategic trust.
[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” is a diplomatic forum that includes India, Australia, the US and Japan. It’s an unusual grouping, since these four countries have little history of acting as a collective. However, some members have strong bilateral ties, especially the US with…” post_summery=”The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (India, Australia, the US and Japan) is having an identity crisis. If the world is to take the Quad seriously, it needs to understand its purpose. Promoting democracy and freedom of navigation is a good start, but if that is the mission, it is no longer rational to exclude South Korea from the club.” post-date=”Sep 05, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Now Is the Time to Invite South Korea in and Turn Quad Into Quintet” slug-data=”fo-talks-now-is-the-time-to-invite-south-korea-in-and-turn-quad-into-quintet”>
FO° Talks: Now Is the Time to Invite South Korea in and Turn Quad Into Quintet
[See also: FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East, Part 1]
In the early 2000s, the United States’ hegemonic position in the Middle East changed. The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the need to contain communist influence and decreased the urgency of refereeing regional disagreements or addressing the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
However, the Middle East came sharply into focus when the Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil, killing 2,977. The George W. Bush administration declared a “War on Terror,” training its guns not only on groups like al-Qaeda but also states like Baathist dictator Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Claiming that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction, the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and toppled his regime.
With the invasion, the generally successful half-century of US foreign policy in the Middle East that had begun with the 1953 Iranian coup d’état came to a close. The US found itself mired in a destabilized Iraq, unable to pull out as the newly installed democratic government could not combat Islamist insurgencies on its own.
Disengagement and reengagement
The Barack Obama administration attempt to reduce Middle East involvement and “pivot towards Asia.” The rise of the brutal and initially successful Sunni terrorist group ISIS, the 2011 Arab Spring and the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War prevented the US from disengaging. Obama did make progress by striking a deal with Iran, agreeing to lift financial sanctions in exchange for the cessation of the Islamic republic’s nuclear program. However, Obama’s successor Donald Trump later scrapped the deal.
Despite these setbacks, the US succeeded in protecting its interests while attempting to resolve regional wars and the enduring Arab–Israeli conflict. The Trump administration brokered the Abraham Accords, in which Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) normalized ties with Israel. Morocco soon followed suit. Saudi Arabia also entered negotiations with Israel, but the prospect of normalization stalled following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza. Since the war broke out, the US has seen decreased popularity among Arab populations as they blamed the hegemonic power for backing up what they saw as Zionist aggression in Palestine. However, a bilateral security agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia remains possible.
In recent years, the US reduced its dependency on imported fuels by exploiting its own fossil fuel reserves. The US is rich in oil and natural gas, but they are usually in a form that requires more effort to extract than in the Middle East. Fracking and other technological advancements have helped close this gap. However, Saudi Arabia continues to be the biggest figure in oil production.
The region continues to evolve. Gone is the binary US–Soviet dynamic, and gone, too, is unipolar US preponderance. More independent actors like China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UAE now shape the region. China, heavily reliant on Middle Eastern oil, is increasing its economic and political presence.
Domestically, American attitudes toward the Middle East are also in flux. Younger Americans are growing more critical of Israel. Having grown up during the Iraq War, this generation is leery of US involvement in the region. For now, though, the US continues to prioritize regional stability, oil price stability and containment of Iranian influence in its Middle East policy.
[Tara Yarwais wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In the early 2000s, the United States’ hegemonic position in the Middle East changed. The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the need to contain communist influence and decreased the urgency of…” post_summery=”The United States’ role in the Middle East took a turn in the early 2000s after the Bush administration’s War on Terror. The disastrous US invasion of Iraq changed the public perception of the US’ role. While the Obama administration attempted to pivot to Asia, the 2011 Arab Spring, the Syrian Civil War and the ISIS emergency required reentry. At the same time, the domestic fracking boom brought some self-sufficiency in terms of fossil fuels.” post-date=”Aug 24, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East Part 2″ slug-data=”fo-talks-americas-new-fast-changing-role-in-the-middle-east-part-2″>
FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East Part 2
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has now entered its tenth month, with over 39,000 casualties reported. Recent developments have further escalated tensions in the Middle East, notably Israel’s assassinations of two high-ranking leaders: Fouad Shukur, a senior Hezbollah military commander, in Beirut, and Ismail Haniyeh, the top Hamas political official, in Tehran. Just before these two events, a Hezbollah rocket slammed into a soccer field in the Golan Heights, killing 12 children.
These events have been alarming, and there is a legitimate fear that they could spark a wider war in the region. However, all parties have expressed a desire to avoid full-scale war. While tensions are high, a regional conflict involving Hezbollah, Israel and Iran — potentially drawing in the US and other nations — may be less imminent than it appears. These offensive actions might be part of a calculated strategy to signal boundaries and demonstrate power without crossing the line to broader conflict.
Perhaps the greater issue Israel faces is its growing internal tensions, particularly the widening rift between the far right and more moderate elements of the government. An arrest of 10 Israeli soldiers on July 29 for sexually assaulting Palestinian prisoners ignited heated protests. This has heightened concerns that Israel could be on the brink of internal conflict and destabilization.
Who did Israel assassinate, and why?
Israel’s assassination of Fouad Shukur was reportedly in retaliation for a Hezbollah rocket attack that struck the occupied Golan Heights, tragically killing 12 children. Shukur was allegedly behind this attack. He had also been wanted in the US for decades due to his involvement in the 1983 bombing of a Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, which killed 241 American service members.
Assasinating the Hezbollah commander thus appears to be a more or less rational move. However, the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh seems less logical from a strategic perspective.
Haniyeh was killed when an Israeli rocket hit his official residence in Tehran while he was attending the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s new president. Iran has long used Hezbollah as a proxy in its broader strategy against Israel. Haniyeh was the the head of Hamas’s political wing and widely known for his more moderate and cosmopolitan approach, compared to his counterparts. He was a central figure in the ongoing efforts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza. The killing of Haniyeh likely silenced a moderating voice within Hamas and could push his successor toward a harder, less compromising stance against Israel.
Domestic political pressures, rather than military necessity, may have driven the assassination. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have felt the need to strike Iran in order to assuage the far right and maintain domestic stability.
There is a concern that events could escalate into a broader conflict in the Middle East, all parties have continuously expressed a desire to avoid full-scale war. Each side appears to be carefully navigating the situation, using targeted strikes and other “tit for tat” tactics to communicate their limits while avoiding escalation. For instance, when Iran launched 300 missiles and drones at Israel, they made it clear through backchannels that they were not seeking war. Israel responded in a similar manner, signaling its intent to avoid a broader conflict.
Israel’s growing internal tensions
While external threats are significant, the growing rift between the far right and more moderate elements of the Israeli government poses a greater risk to the country’s stability.
On July 29, Israel arrested 10 soldiers for the sexual assault and abuse of Palestinian prisoners. Following their arrest, far-right protesters stormed two military bases in Southern and Central Israel. Protests have continued into this month, with right-wing demonstrators effectively rallying for the right to rape and mistreat Palestinian detainees as they see fit.
In this situation, Netanyahu has positioned himself as a moderate figure, and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called for peace, emphasizing that no one is above the law. However, the far right remains defiant, rejecting these calls. The growing schism within Israel is becoming increasingly serious, raising concerns that the country could be on the verge of internal conflict — potentially even civil war.
The big issue for Israel may be the internal struggle between its more secular, democratic heritage and the rise of ultra-Orthodox factions. This internal struggle is harder to see than the immediate external conflicts but potentially even more destabilizing in the long run.
[Ting Cui wrote the first draft of this piece]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has now entered its tenth month, with over 39,000 casualties reported. Recent developments have further escalated tensions in the Middle East, notably Israel’s assassinations of two high-ranking leaders: Fouad Shukur, a senior Hezbollah military…” post_summery=”The Israel–Hamas conflict has escalated with the recent assassinations of a senior Hezbollah commander and a Hamas leader, raising fears of a broader regional war. As Israel contends with growing external pressures from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, it also faces significant internal tensions from its far right that could destabilize the country.” post-date=”Aug 18, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Exclusive: Warm Middle East Is Now Getting Boiling Hot” slug-data=”fo-exclusive-warm-middle-east-is-now-getting-boiling-hot”>
FO° Exclusive: Warm Middle East Is Now Getting Boiling Hot
There is a structural problem within the US government: It cannot define a long-term foreign strategy. As the presidential position cycles every four or eight years, it is difficult for presidents to establish a policy that lasts after their term. The implications of this situation are evident in the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Despite US President Joe Biden’s desire to halt the violence, his ability to act is constrained by the lack of assertive policy when it comes to Israel. There is also significant doubt whether Biden even has enough power to influence Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
So is the Republican candidate, former US President Trump, the only option to stop the violence? Trump has prominently campaigned on his strong support for Israel. Whether this is for tactical or genuine purposes is unclear. In his first term, his government took the most pro-Israel approach of any administration. He took the initiative to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. Furthermore, he provided financial incentives to Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and other nations to normalize their relations with Israel.
However, future developments in regard to Trump’s Israel policy are difficult to predict. Rumors even suggest that Trump and Netanyahu have a strained relationship. If this is true, Trump’s unpredictability might lead him to exert tough pressure on the Israeli government in order to reshape himself into a peacemaker. Conversely, Biden has shown a reluctance to invest significant political capital in applying serious pressure on Israel.
Israel also suffers from the West’s inaction
Lack of a firm US policy may not bode well for Israelis and Palestinians. Following the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, there was a global consensus that a two-state solution was the only political perspective imaginable. For various reasons, a one-state solution appears highly undesirable — and a solution involving ethnic cleansing, of course, would be even less desirable. Thus, the least problematic solution is a two-state solution.
A few problems arise here, primarily the question of what must be done with Israeli settlers in Palestine. In a recent study, settlers were asked under what conditions they would be willing to leave their homes, which are considered illegal under international law. Approximately 80% of settlers indicated that they would have no issue relocating to the other side. They only stay for economic reasons. Among the approximately 20% who did not agree, only a small proportion expressed a willingness to resort to unlawful means, such as violence, to defend their communities.
If the Israeli leaders understood this issue, they would do the opposite of what they appear to be doing: arming the settlers. Thus, the true intentions of the Israeli government in Gaza and in the West Bank are being questioned. Is the objective to liberate the hostages and destroy Hamas? Or is there a more sinister intent? These are important questions to answer, especially as Israel faces serious, existential consequences as a result of the war.
Recently, the Population and Immigration Authority released statistics indicating that approximately 550,000 individuals have left Israel since October 7. The majority of these individuals appear to be high-tech entrepreneurs who may have sought safer environments such as California or Berlin for their operations. Because of this, there has been a dramatic economic impact on Israel with a 20–25% loss in GDP. It would be in Israel’s interest to end the bloodshed promptly and to facilitate the restart of the economy.
Uncertainty has become the world order
It is in the interest of the West and Israel to find a solution. However, the West is currently suffering from a lack of the ability to apply and enforce serious measures against violations of international law. In discussions about a rules-based international order and the primacy of international law, the US appears inconsistent. The US criticizes other actors for breaching international laws and imposes stringent sanctions. Why not Israel?
This inconsistency provides a rationale for authoritarian regimes and non-democratic governments to justify their own human rights violations. Iranians point out that the Israeli bombing of their embassy in Damascus has gone without condemnation from Western countries. They argue that if Iran had bombed an Israeli embassy anywhere in the world, the international reaction would have been severe.
It would be in the interest of the West to join forces and develop a comprehensible strategy for the future. Yet, following the latest NATO Summit, it appears that the US aims to create conflict with the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). This stance seems contrary to the interests of Germany and other European nations that have dynamic economic and trade relationships with China. It is contrary to US interests as well. Such a move indicates the need for a reassessment of the global role of the US.
However, international measures are also falling short of solutions. The EU, like the US, is facing uncertainty after elections. France’s elections in particular have shown that people are not ready to accept every policy that filters down from the top. It seems like government committees, rather than the people, are making all the serious decisions. There is a clash between the personalities running governments and the common people. Uncertainty has become reality.
In this period of uncertainty, it is highly unlikely that significant decisions will be made. The recent BRICS summit — which will be followed by another in October — indicates that, at least until the US election, other regions of the world are reorganizing at a pace faster than anticipated. The US must tackle its foreign policy issues if it wishes to stay at the top of the world order.
[Tanisha Desai wrote the first draft of this piece.]
[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” There is a structural problem within the US government: It cannot define a long-term foreign strategy. As the presidential position cycles every four or eight years, it is difficult for presidents to establish a policy that lasts after their term. The implications of this situation are evident in…” post_summery=”As the world grows increasingly unstable, leadership from the US is noticeably lacking. The so-called global hegemon seems unable to exert pressure even on states with which it has close relations, like Israel. The upcoming US presidential election adds a layer of uncertainty; the fact that one of the two possible winners is Donald Trump adds another layer. When the US is unpredictable, global volatility deepens as other states seek to craft their own solutions. The US must take a new approach on its foreign policy if it wishes to remain the primary world power and ensure a stable international system.” post-date=”Aug 17, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Can the US Handle an International System Under Enormous Strain?” slug-data=”fo-talks-can-the-us-handle-an-international-system-under-enormous-strain”>
FO° Talks: Can the US Handle an International System Under Enormous Strain?
On June 24, the US Supreme Court shocked legal observers with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The decision overturned the 40-year-old doctrine of Chevron deference.
Stemming from the 1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Chevron deference doctrine required US courts defer to the administration’s interpretation of ambiguous laws. This means that myriads of closed cases are now open for litigation as individuals and corporations across the country can and likely will seek to challenge old administrative decisions.
How did Chevron deference work?
When Congress makes laws, it cannot possibly predict every set of circumstances to which the law may be applied. This means that, when applying laws, the federal bureaucracy — which ultimately answers to the president — has to use its best judgment to apply the law in ambiguous instances. Agencies like the Department of Labor, the Securities and Exchange Commission and even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employ not only lawyers but subject matter experts to help them make these decisions.
In 1981, the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, successfully challenged the validity of the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act in the District of Columbia circuit court. Chevron Corporation, an oil and gas firm, appealed the ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chevron and the EPA’s interpretation. The Court reasoned that administrative agencies would be crippled if federal courts constantly questioned their regulations and overturned their decision. So, the Court stipulated that, as long as an agency follows a plausible interpretation of the law, federal courts are not to contradict it.
Originally, conservatives welcomed the decision, because the outcome favored their interests in fossil fuels. The principle on which Chevron was based was not, at the time, a partisan issue, and few observers expected the decision to be very significant. However, in succeeding years Chevron took on a life of its own. Federal courts cited the decision thousands of times.
Conservatives complained that Chevron was making it difficult for private parties to challenge any action of the bureaucracy. They also accused Democrats of deliberately passing ambiguous laws so that their allies in the administration could use “interpretation” to push liberal agendas.
Cases are tailored to attack specific laws
The United States is a common law jurisdiction — a trait which it inherited from England. In the common law tradition, courts cannot simply intervene to reinterpret the law when asked to do so. They must wait for a case to arise in which an injured party requires relief and granting that relief requires reinterpreting the law. Lawyers know this, and over the years they have developed the art of intentionally crafting a case so that the courts will need to reinterpret the law as desired. Loper Bright was one such case; it was designed to run afoul of Chevron.
Loper Bright Enterprises, a herring fishery, was required by law to keep a third-party monitor on every boat to prevent overfishing. The government had been paying the monitors, but the money ran out; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a branch of the Commerce Department thus instituted a new rule to shift the sudden burden: the fisheries themselves would have to pay the monitors’ salary. This caused an uproar amongst the herring fishermen. Their own salaries depended on the catch; sometimes, fish were scarce. But the monitors received a flat fee, regardless of the catch. Often, the monitor was the best-paid person on the boat, even including the captain.
Loper Bright sued Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, claiming the NMFS was misinterpreting the law. Naturally, the initial court dismissed the suit, citing Chevron. Loper Bright appealed up to the Supreme Court. Loper Bright found a ready audience in a Court packed with conservative textualists who disliked the idea of bureaucracies loosely applying the law. The court took the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as requiring courts to use their own interpretation of the law when ruling cases. In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the Court ruled in Loper Bright’s favor, overturning Chevron.
The consequences of overturning Chevron
The Loper Bright decision was not retroactive, which means it did not disestablish the past rulings in favor of the administrative state. However, dissenting justices pointed out that another recent case, Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, allows litigants to bypass the six-year statute of limitations for civil suits. This means that all 40 years of Chevron-based decisions may now be thrown into question.
This will have extensive ramifications for the administrative state. There is likely to be a feeding frenzy of lawsuits within the coming years seeking to overturn any number of administrative rules. At present, there is no telling what the outcome will be, which policies will be overturned and how. For now, many are hopeful that this will result in a sharp curtailing of administrative power.
[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” On June 24, the US Supreme Court shocked legal observers with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The decision overturned the 40-year-old doctrine of Chevron deference. Stemming from the 1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Chevron deference doctrine…” post_summery=”The US Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron deference doctrine in a recent landmark case, voiding 40 years of judicial standard. Now, US courts will not have to defer to the administration’s interpretation of ambiguous laws. The Court has thus limited the power of the federal bureaucracy.” post-date=”Aug 16, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Talks: SCOTUS Creates Tantalizing Opportunities to Overturn 40-Year-Old Rules” slug-data=”fo-talks-scotus-creates-tantalizing-opportunities-to-overturn-40-year-old-rules”>
FO° Talks: SCOTUS Creates Tantalizing Opportunities to Overturn 40-Year-Old Rules
In this edition of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson, Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer, discusses the 2024 European Union Parliament elections with Fair Observer Editor at Large Alex Gloy and Institute of the Danube and Central Europe Director Sebastian Schaffer.
Politics in France have been coming to a boil. The past elections symbolize the lessons people have drawn from the fact that there is a more substantial influence of the extreme right, including Germany and Austria. French President Emmanuel Macron called for snap elections after the European Union Parliament elections. This move concerned many, seemed counterintuitive and provided further momentum toward the National Rally candidate, Marine Le Pen. On the other hand, there is hope that the next election will be different.
Surging right wing
Germany and Austria are other countries where the extreme right surged in the most recent European parliamentary election. Right now, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), a center-right political group, holds a majority of the seats with 188 out of 720 total seats. However, the far-right, represented in Germany by Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), has been on the rise. AfD is the strongest in East Germany and among new voters. It finished second, with 15.9% of the national vote, behind the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CDU/CSU).
In Austria, the Freedom Party has seen a similar rise in popularity. Austria will hold its regular parliamentary elections in September.
It is helpful, however, to take a step back and avoid drawing strict comparisons between different nations’ political situations. The media has been permanently interested in the far right challenging the center. This obscured the meaning of the center, with the media distorting perceptions of political alignment. If Le Pen were an American, she would be to the left of the democratic party. She advocates for social programs and supports the working class, something that no accepted party in the US is willing to do. Yet the media creates the perception that she is far-right and that the far right is therefore on the rise in France.
Since World War II, France has had a very solid right wing which consolidated around Charles de Gaulle. Francois Mitterand emerged after World War II and formed France’s left wing. Mitterand increased greatly in electoral appeal. He nationalized all big banks and major industries. Until 2017, France expected either the socialist party or a rightwing party more or less in the Gaullist tradition to rule, but that is when France started shifting to legitimizing the far right as an alternative to the two establishment wings of the ruling political spectrum: the socialists and the traditional post-Gaullist right.
How united is Europe?
The EU Parliament elections are not just a single election; they are 27 national parallel elections. A question that many may ask “Are people voting for the whole of Europe or just their country?” This is what makes elections so difficult on a European level. For example, people in Bratislava will not be interested in issues such as those of the Social Democratic Party in Austria. Voters will focus on the issues and problems of their own countries. This has created an identity problem in Europe. Europeans are more focused on their national identity and national issues rather than being united as Europeans with European problems.
The European project must move forward. Countries that trade with each other should not go to war. Europe has progressed in the past decades. When traveling in Europe, people once had to stop at border checkpoints, but now people can drive straight through. Europe also adopted the Euro in 1999, providing a universal currency for Europe. This has allowed for swift and easy transactions and removed the need to calculate exchange rates.
The gradual rise of far-right parties and the challenges to the political center have sparked intense debates about the nature of political alignment and the identity of the electorate. The issue of European unity remains a complex and pressing concern, as national interests often overshadow the broader European agenda. Despite the challenges, hope still exists for a more united and prosperous Europe.
[Liam Roman wrote this first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” In this edition of FO° Talks, Peter Isackson, Fair Observer Chief Strategy Officer, discusses the 2024 European Union Parliament elections with Fair Observer Editor at Large Alex Gloy and Institute of the Danube and Central Europe Director Sebastian Schaffer. Politics in France have been…” post_summery=”In the aftermath of the EU parliamentary elections, French President Emmanuel Macron’s call for snap national elections stirred concern and increased support for the opposition National Rally candidate, Marine Le Pen. Germany and Austria have also witnessed a surge in far-right influence, reflecting a larger trend in European politics. The media’s portrayal of the far right has contributed to a distortion of political alignments, prompting discussions about the true meaning of centrism and unity in Europe.” post-date=”Aug 15, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Can Europe Vote Itself Out of Its Crisis?” slug-data=”fo-talks-can-europe-vote-itself-out-of-its-crisis”>
FO° Talks: Can Europe Vote Itself Out of Its Crisis?
The US has been a key player in the Middle East since World War II. A strategic interest in oil drove its involvement, leading to critical diplomatic engagements like President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s secret 1945 visit to the Middle East after the Yalta Conference. The British, previously the dominant hegemonic power in the region, misjudged Saudi oil potential and focused on Iran. British interests in Egypt and Iran faced complications, including the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran and an attempted invasion of Egypt with France and Israel in 1956 that sparked condemnation from both the US and the Soviet Union. This marked a transition from British hegemony in the Middle East to Cold War competition and, eventually, American preponderance. It was during this period that the US formed lasting alliances with the Gulf States and Israel that continue to impact the Middle East today.
To understand the role the US plays in the Middle East today, we need to look at history. In the aftermath of World War II, America turned to the region mainly due to its strategic interest in the Middle East’s vast energy resources, particularly oil. On February 19, 1945, President Roosevelt met with King Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman al Saud (better known in the West as Ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy on the Great Bitter Lake in Egypt. Despite the colorful pageantry, including the slaughtering of goats for a feast, the central focus of the talks was disposition of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees following World War II and the future relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a notable absence of direct discussions about oil.
Britain’s losing gamble in Iran
Meanwhile, the British, previously dominant in the Middle East, made a critical miscalculation regarding Saudi Arabia’s mineral potential. The British underestimated Saudi oil reserves. The Americans, adopting a more persistent approach, eventually struck oil in the eastern part of the country. This discovery solidified the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States and US oil interests, marking the beginning of an enduring alliance. This partnership involved US oil companies drilling for oil in Saudi Arabia, with an even split in profits.
The British, with a historical interest in preserving its global empire, particularly in India and the Middle East, had a vested interest in maintaining its strong influence in the region, most notably Egypt and Iran. However, their misjudgment of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves created a strategic setback, contributing to the evolution of the Middle East’s power dynamics.
As a result, the British focused on the oil in Iran; however, they had a different relationship with the Iranians. The British attempted to maintain control in Egypt and Iran but faced setbacks. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Ltd., (today known as BP), stood at the center of international tension. Under Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadegh, the Iranians sought to nationalize the oil company, which Britain vigorously opposed. The US encouraged the two parties to look to the US–Saudi partnership as a model. Yet both sides stubbornly refused and held on inflexibly. Along with Mossadegh’s obstinance, British and later American concerns about the direction of the Mossadegh government in its relationship with the Soviet Union led to the deposition of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and the reinstatement of the absolute monarchy. Years later, the CIA admitted to America’s part in backing the coup to rid Iran of its Prime Minister.
Discontentment with the new regime and anti-Western sentiment eventually led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Islamists expelled Western interests from the country and set Iran as the foremost anti-Western power in the region, which it remains to this day.
Washington takes up the banner from London
As the 1950s wore on, US influence on the world stage and participation in Middle East politics continued to grow, taking on the role of peacekeeper. When Israel, France and the UK attempted to invade Egypt in 1956 to gain canal control, the US publicly condemned the plan, leading to the breakdown of the attempted attack. This marked a break between the European colonial powers with the US, which paradoxically found itself on the same side of the dispute as the Soviet Union, which that same year had invaded Hungary..
Yet the stage had been set. 1956 marked a turning point in the global balance of power. No longer would Paris and London dictate the terms of engagement, but two new and formally anti-colonial superpowers — the US and the Soviet Union — would shape the international system. For the succeeding three and a half decades, the Middle East, like the rest of the world, would become a Cold War chessboard.
[Tara Yarwais wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” The US has been a key player in the Middle East since World War II. A strategic interest in oil drove its involvement, leading to critical diplomatic engagements like President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s secret 1945 visit to the Middle East after the Yalta Conference. The British, previously the…” post_summery=”After World War II, the need to ensure that no single country controlled access to the region’s rich reserves of fossil fuels underscored US diplomacy in and led US diplomats to the Middle East. While the US forged an alliance with Saudi Arabia, the British had thrown their hat in with Iran. The US proved to have made the wiser choice, and with the failure of Britain’s intervention during the 1956 Suez Crisis, cemented its position as the predominant Western power in the Middle East.” post-date=”Aug 04, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East, Part 1″ slug-data=”fo-talks-americas-new-fast-changing-role-in-the-middle-east-part-1″>
FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East, Part 1
There is a lack of innovation in India. India scarcely produces inventions that change the world. Ironically, a nation with so many engineers, software houses and global research centers has generated few technological advances with global impact.
What innovation India does have is driven by entrepreneurs wanting to create startup companies. These are uncommon, as graduates often seek employment at existing corporations out of school. Additionally, Indians confuse innovation with incubation. Many so-called “innovation centers” — collaborative hubs where groups exchange ideas and develop projects together — are really incubation centers, designed to aid the formation of startup companies.
Innovation is a teachable skill set that, unfortunately, the Indian education system does not encourage at any level. The current system focuses too heavily on information retention and rigid testing. Young minds should learn to be curious, ask questions and invent new ideas.
Fortunately, a new movement is emerging to improve India’s higher education: the maker space movement. It challenges students to design with their hands. The nationwide spread of maker spaces — collaborative work spaces in schools and public facilities, which provide professional tools and technology — offers Indian students a chance to experiment and invent. Its goal is to kindle an innovative spirit within them.
Maker Bhavan Foundation wants to fix India’s innovation
Maker Bhavan Foundation (MBF), founded by Director Hemant Kanakia and managed by President Ruyintan Mehta, is dedicated to reforming engineering education nationwide. It does so by teaching Indian student engineers creativity, teamwork, communication and problem-solving skills.
MBF is based on Kanakia’s experiences at India’s IIT Bombay and the United States’s Stanford University. He observed that Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) were frozen in their pedagogy — the method and practice of teaching — unlike outside organizations like Stanford. The latter school has evolved and now emphasizes experiential over theoretical learning.
Indian institutions, on the other hand, teach theoretically instead of experientially. Thus, Indian graduates rarely have the practical skills to build technological devices and systems out of school. Many make great theoreticians but lackluster engineers.
MBF’s vision is to boost the education level by focusing on the top and middle tier of adult students. It modernizes the pedagogy so students work in teams, create things and develop an inventive spirit. MBF boosts its students’ confidence and teaches them a judgment of practicality through the building process.
Kanakia started the foundation at IIT Bombay in 2017. He had a dialogue with the IT officer in charge of technical education at the central government’s Ministry of Education. He was so enthusiastic that he started a similar mission called Atal Tinkering Lab, which provides the same service for children across a thousand Indian schools.
Mehta hopes to spread MBF’s movement to 50 higher education institutions covering over 250,000 students in the next five to six years. He desires to make India a land of deep thinkers who brainstorm, invent and work with their hands. In his words, MBF is about “learning by doing” and “learning by using.”
Tinkerers’ Labs and LEAP encourage creativity
MBF’s first and most important initiative is Tinkerers’ Labs. This comprises student-managed maker spaces that are open all day, every day. The labs enable students to experiment and exercise their imaginations. They can build prototypes of whatever they desire using a variety of sophisticated machines — 3D printers, laser cutters, vinyl cutters and more. This experiential education system pushes them to convert concepts into tangible, potentially workable products of engineering.
The intended goal is for students to find solutions for India-specific problems. For example, if a student’s family member had asthma, they might choose to build an inhaler tailored to the local conditions.
In the past few years, Tinkerers’ Labs has collaborated with another educational program: Learn Engineering by Activity with Products (LEAP). This project-based program helps students learn similar patterns of engineering, but operates in South Indian colleges that lack IIT facilities.
LEAP’s prototyping process goes like this: First-year students reverse-engineer products and craft small prototypes. Second-years receive mentoring to create more substantial prototypes. Third-years work on industry-provided problems, where their projects get progressively more complex. Fourth-years are instructed to go find a socially relevant problem and build a solution for it.
Over 10,000 students from more than 11 higher education institutions have flexed their creativity at Tinkerers’ Labs.
Invention Factory gets students building
Tinkerers’ Labs is not MBF’s only initiative. Invention Factory is a six-week intensive summer program developed in the US at The Cooper Union, which MBF has brought to India. In this program, undergraduate students from across India work in pairs to build prototypes for innovative inventions.
They first learn to pitch their ideas; concepts can only advance to the next stage once they are accepted by 75% of the participants and faculty. They then develop a working prototype and continually improve it. At the end of the six weeks, they pitch their creation to a panel of judges, who award the students first, second or third prize.
One notable team visited a local farm and asked farmers about the difficulties of mango picking. There is a 15% wastage, they learned, when plucking the fruit off its tree. They observed the standard-use picker and devised an improvement for it. The team’s simple instrument saved labor by both picking and packaging the fruits. As 45% of all mangoes are produced in India, this was indeed a solution to an India-specific problem.
Of the ideas prototyped at Invention Factory, to date, 104 have been patented in the US and India. Several of them had such great utility value that commercial companies approached the student teams, hoping to license or adapt their inventions.
MBF is working to develop an industry associate program, so it can place top students in industries where they can continue their work. This combats the issue of graduates discarding innovative pursuits in favor of immediate employment.
MBF funding: donors, corporations and eventually the government
MBF is a US-based nonprofit organization that Kanakia kickstarted with his own fortune. His work predominantly attracted passionate IIT workers who inspired donors to support the organization. US donors contribute 90% of its funds.
Mehta aims to get future funding from Indian companies through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). By law, Indian companies must spend 2% of their net profits on CSR — so companies could choose to spend their 2% funding MBF. So far, however, they have not.
Regardless, Mehta is confident that Tinkerers’ Labs and Invention Factory will attract Indian funds. These programs bring in industry leaders as judges, who are amazed by the students and consider supporting the organization.
MBF is currently in the “friends and family” phase. Its ambitions have expanded over the years, so the group needs to leverage the money that it has put in itself with a corporate sponsorship, like CSR.
MBF has not sought government funds, but Kanakia intends to change that in the next stage. The Indian government is good at allocating money but not monitoring its outcome or ensuring its continued success. It would want to send a minimum of 500 crore rupees (over $59 million).
It is easier to define a program as a public-private partnership; both sides chip in funds while the private portion manages the program. That’s the direction MBF will likely take with Tinkerers’ Labs and Invention Factory. But, no matter who funds it, MBF will continue to support the experiential learning and creative endeavors of young Indians.
[Lee Thompson-Kolar wrote the first draft of this piece.]
The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
” post-content-short=” There is a lack of innovation in India. India scarcely produces inventions that change the world. Ironically, a nation with so many engineers, software houses and global research centers has generated few technological advances with global impact. What innovation India does have is driven by…” post_summery=”India has an innovation problem. Information retention and rigid testing stifle students’ creativity and critical thinking. Fortunately, the maker space movement seeks to develop students’ innovative spirit. Maker spaces provide them tools and challenge them to build with their hands, helping up-and-coming engineers find their passion for inventing.” post-date=”Aug 03, 2024″ post-title=”FO° Talks: Make Sense of the Maker Space Movement in India” slug-data=”fo-talks-make-sense-of-the-maker-space-movement-in-india”>
FO° Talks: Make Sense of the Maker Space Movement in India
Source link