#India-U.S. relations
Text
The Espionage Enigma: A Tale of Terrorist Designations, Diplomacy, and Double Standards
In the thrilling drama of international politics, the recent saga involving Indian intelligence, a Sikh separatist in the US, and the curious case of Hamas unfolds like a gripping spy novel, replete with irony, wit, and a generous dose of geopolitical hypocrisy.#### The Unlikely Protagonist: Gurpatwant Singh PannunEnter Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, the face of the Khalistan movement in the West,…
View On WordPress
#2023#assassination plot#counterterrorism#DEA agent#diplomatic balancing#espionage#Free Speech#geopolitical hypocrisy#Global-Politics#Gurpatwant-Singh-Pannun#Hamas#India#India-U.S. relations#internal security#International Relations#Khalistan#political asylum#Satire#separatist movements#Sikhs for Justice#terrorism designations#U.S. foreign policy
0 notes
Text
US targets companies selling Iranian petrochemicals in fresh sanctions
New Post has been published on https://www.timesofocean.com/u-s-targets-companies-selling-iranian-petrochemicals-in-sanctions/
US targets companies selling Iranian petrochemicals in fresh sanctions
Washington (The Times Groupe)- The United States has imposed fresh sanctions on Chinese and Emirati companies and a network of Iranian firms for helping export petrochemicals from Iran.
On June 16, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed penalties on two Hong Kong-based companies, three Iranian companies, and four UAE companies, as well as two Chinese and one Indian company.
The Treasury Department attributed the moves to negotiations to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
“The United States is seeking to achieve a mutual return to compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action through meaningful diplomacy,” said Brian Nelson, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.
“Without a deal, we will continue to impose sanctions on Iran that limit the export of petroleum, petroleum products, and petrochemicals,” Nelson said.
In exchange for relief from U.S., European Union, and United Nations sanctions, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program.
In 2018, then-U.S. president Donald Trump pulled out of the deal and restored U.S. sanctions, causing Iran to begin violating the restrictions. Efforts to revive the agreement have so far failed.
It was reported in March that a revised deal was close, but talks in Vienna abruptly stalled in April as Iran and Washington blamed each other for not taking the necessary political decisions to settle remaining issues.
There were disagreements over whether Washington would remove the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) from its list of designated foreign terrorist organizations.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has long denied attempting to secretly develop nuclear weapons. It claims its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. Despite the collapse of the deal, Tehran has vastly expanded its nuclear work. iranian petrochemicals
#Brian Nelson#china-us relations#export petrochemicals from Iran#iran nuclear program#Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)#Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)#sanctions on Chinese and Emirati companies#Terrorism and Financial Intelligence#The Times Groupe#Times Of Ocean#U.S. president Donald Trump#U.S. Treasury Department#UAE companies#Unravel News#US Sanctions#us-india releations#us-uae relations#Politics
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
How the War in Ukraine is Accelerating India’s Desire for Tech Autonomy – The Diplomat
How the War in Ukraine is Accelerating India’s Desire for Tech Autonomy – The Diplomat
Advertisement
The first major territorial war of the 21st century will ultimately produce geopolitical winners and losers. Nevertheless, the remaking of international order is not only being scripted on Ukrainian territory; neither is the war’s interpretation only being shaped in Kyiv, Washington, D.C., and Moscow.
When India abstained in the March 2 vote on the United Nations General Assembly’s…
View On WordPress
#Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan#Economy#Featured#India#India high-tech#India technology#India Ukraine response#India-Russia relations#Sanctions on Russia#Self-reliance in India#South Asia#U.S.-India relations
0 notes
Text
With a history of short-term governments in Nepal’s 15 years of democratic progression, the current reconfiguration is no surprise, and it will be no surprise if the Maoists get back again with the Nepali Congress in months and years to come.
Power sharing, political discontent, ideological differences, underperformance, and pressure to restore Nepal to a Hindu state – a long list of reasons reportedly forced the Maoists to sever ties with the Nepali Congress. While the Nepali Congress expected the Maoist leader and current prime minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (also known by his nom de guerre, Prachanda) to leave the alliance, it did not expect an overnight turnaround. [...]
Dahal reportedly conveyed to the Nepali Congress chair, former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, that external pressure forced him to join hands with CPN-UML and form a new government.
If this assertion is true, China emerges as a plausible factor, given its historical inclination toward forging alliances with leftist parties in Nepal. This notion gains credence in light of China’s past efforts, such as its unsuccessful attempt in 2020 to mediate the conflict between Oli and Dahal.
On the other hand, India has enjoyed a comfortable working relationship with the Nepali Congress and the Maoists. Although Maoists were a challenging party for New Delhi to get along with when Dahal first gained the prime minister’s seat in 2008, the two have come a long way in working together. However, the CPN-UML has advocated closer ties with the northern neighbor China; Beijing suits both their ideological requirements and their ultra-nationalistic outlook – which is primarily anti-India. [...]
India faces challenges in aligning with the Left Alliance for two key reasons. First, the energy trade between Nepal and India has grown crucial over the past couple of years. However, India strictly purchases power generated through its own investments in Nepal, refusing any power produced with Chinese involvement. With the CPN-UML now in government, Nepal may seek alterations in this arrangement despite the benefits of power trade in reducing its trade deficit with India.
Second, India stands to lose the smooth cooperation it enjoyed with the recently dissolved Maoist-Congress coalition. During the dissolved government, the Nepali Congress held the Foreign Ministry, fostering a favorable equation for India. Just last month, Foreign Minister N.P. Saud visited India for the 9th Raisina Dialogue, engaging with top Indian officials, including his counterpart, S. Jaishankar.
As concerns arise for India regarding the Left Alliance, there is also potential for shifts in the partnership between Nepal and the United States, a significant development ally. Particularly, there may be a slowdown in the implementation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) projects. Despite facing domestic and Chinese opposition, the Nepali Parliament finally approved a $500 million MCC grant from the United States in 2022, following a five-year delay.
China perceives the MCC as a component of the U.S.-led Indo-Pacific strategy, countering its BRI. Hence Beijing aims to increase Chinese loans and subsidies to Nepal to enhance its influence.
To conclude, the re-emergence of Nepal’s Left Alliance signals a shift in power dynamics, impacting domestic politics and regional geopolitics. With China’s influence growing, Nepal’s foreign policy may tilt further toward Beijing, challenging India’s interests. This shift poses challenges for India, particularly in trade and diplomatic relations, while also affecting Nepal’s partnerships with other key players like the United States.
[[The Author,] Dr. Rishi Gupta is the assistant director of the Asia Society Policy Institute, Delhi]
6 Mar 24
229 notes
·
View notes
Text
On March 2, just days before the meeting, Lu had been questioned at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing over the neutrality of India, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan in the Ukraine conflict. [...]
The day before the meeting, Khan addressed a rally and responded directly to European calls that Pakistan rally behind Ukraine. “Are we your slaves?” Khan thundered to the crowd. “What do you think of us? That we are your slaves and that we will do whatever you ask of us?” he asked. “We are friends of Russia, and we are also friends of the United States. We are friends of China and Europe. We are not part of any alliance.” [...] The day after the meeting, on March 8, Khan’s opponents in Parliament moved forward with a key procedural step toward the no-confidence vote.
[...] In recent months, the military-led government cracked down not just on dissidents but also on suspected leakers inside its own institutions, passing a law last week that authorizes warrantless searches and lengthy jail terms for whistleblowers. Shaken by the public display of support for Khan — expressed in a series of mass protests and riots this May — the military has also enshrined authoritarian powers for itself that drastically reduce civil liberties, criminalize criticism of the military, expand the institution’s already expansive role in the country’s economy, and give military leaders a permanent veto over political and civil affairs.
[...] On balance, the text of the cypher strongly suggests that the U.S. encouraged Khan’s removal. According to the cable, while Lu did not directly order Khan to be taken out of office, he said that Pakistan would suffer severe consequences, including international isolation, if Khan were to stay on as prime minister, while simultaneously hinting at rewards for his removal. The remarks appear to have been taken as a signal for the Pakistani military to act.
155 notes
·
View notes
Text
Trump Was Good for America’s Alliances
He pushed NATO to spend more on defense, expanded the Quad and facilitated the Abraham Accords.
By Alexander B. Gray
Wall Street Journal
April 3, 2024
Foreign-policy experts are predictably fretting over Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. They fear that the former president threatens the alliances and partnerships that have sustained global peace since 1945. Should Mr. Trump return to the White House, the thinking goes, he will be unconstrained by the guardrails that prevented him from torpedoing America’s alliances in his first term and will permanently damage both U.S. security and the international order.
This narrative concedes a point that undermines its premise: The U.S. alliance system didn’t crumble during Mr. Trump’s first term. On the contrary, the Trump administration strengthened relations with partners in the Indo-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Mideast. Anyone who believes that Mr. Trump was once bound by conventional wisdom but won’t be again—and will wreak havoc on the global order he ostensibly detests—hasn’t been paying attention.
To understand Mr. Trump’s record, recall what he inherited. The Obama administration’s disastrous “red line” in Syria, its ill-conceived Iranian nuclear deal, its failure to deter or respond adequately to Russia’s 2014 aggression against Ukraine, its toleration of Chinese malign activity in the South and East China seas, and its promise of a “new model of great-power relations” with Beijing had brought U.S. relations with allies and partners like Japan, Taiwan, Israel, the Gulf Arab states and much of Eastern Europe to a historic low point. Much of Mr. Trump’s tenure was spent not simply repairing those relationships but expanding them in innovative ways.
Mr. Trump appalled many foreign-policy veterans, who thought his rhetoric threatened the world order. In one sense, that fear was absurd: Nearly every American administration has publicly scolded North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries for shirking their defense-spending commitments. Mr. Trump did likewise—and, perhaps unlike his predecessors, was seen as willing to take decisive action to secure change. Through public and private cajoling—also known as diplomacy—he secured a commitment from NATO members to beef up their contributions. From 2017 through 2021, nearly every signatory raised defense spending, contributing substantially to the alliance’s ability to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
These efforts resulted in a significant redistribution of U.S. forces from legacy bases in Germany to facilities in Poland and the Baltic states, where they are far better positioned to deter Moscow. Along with NATO allies, Mr. Trump provided long-sought Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, imposed sanctions against malign Russian actors, and worked with partners to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would have increased European allies’ energy dependence on Russia. These weren’t the acts of a retrograde isolationist; they were the work of a pragmatist seeking novel solutions to 21st-century challenges.
The administration’s goal of strengthening America’s standing in the world bore fruit, including the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states, a significant upgrade to the Quad alliance among the U.S., India, Australia and Japan, stronger diplomatic relations with Taiwan thanks to unprecedented cabinet-level visits and record arms sales, and an unexpected deal between Serbia and Kosovo.
At each step, Mr. Trump asked his staff to think of creative ways to resolve issues that had bedeviled their predecessors for decades. Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results rightly struck the president as insane.
After three years of press adulation over America’s supposed return to the world stage under President Biden, one might ask: What have Americans and the world gotten from a supposedly more alliance-friendly U.S. president? So far, a catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the failure of American deterrence in Ukraine, an Iranian nuclear breakout inching ever closer, and an accelerating Chinese threat toward Taiwan. Allies in the Mideast, Eastern Europe, and Asia have begun to chart their own course in the face of an uncertain U.S. trumpet.
The global foreign-policy elite is sowing needless fear around the world by willfully misrepresenting Mr. Trump’s first term and scare-mongering about a second. Should Mr. Trump return to the White House, there will doubtless be sighs of relief among officials in friendly capitals who remember his time in office. It isn’t difficult to understand why: Mr. Trump’s language may make diplomats uncomfortable, but his actions strike fear among those who matter most to American security: our adversaries.
Mr. Gray is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He served as chief of staff of the White House National Security Council, 2019-21.
16 notes
·
View notes
Text
This is not for gatekeeping, I just wanna spout some turtle facts bc I'm a fucking nerd
THE FLAT FUCK FRIDAY MEMES WITH DONNIE ARE FUNNY AS FUCK
Though, these fellas aren't spiny soft shells!
It's the Asian giant soft shell turtle! / Cantor's giant soft shell turtle!
Some differences:
- Spiny softshells are native to North America, spanning from Central-Eastern U.S. all the way down to Northern Mexico, and a little bit into Canada.
- Asian giant softshells are native to Southeast Asia, all the way from Bangladesh to the Philippines, and even spread a bit further out, like in Eastern South India.
- Spiny softshells' carapaces are rougher by its head, spines along the front edge which give it its name. They are also known to "resemble pancakes."
- Asian giant softshells have a smooth carapace all around. It almost blends into their neck.
- Spiny softshells have a snorkel-like nose, 2 yellowish lines on the sides of its head.
- Asian giant softshell turtles have a broad head that ends in a shorter snout, eyes sitting close to it. For this reason, it's also called a "Frog-Faced turtle"
- Adult female spiny softshell's carapaces can grow to 7 up to 19 inches in length. Adult male spiny softshells can go from 5 to 10 inches.
- The general range of size for an adult Asian giant softshell's carapace is 28-39 inches in length.
- Though not listed as not endangered in the US (put as 'least concerned' in the IUCN), spiny softshells are considered endangered in Canada (listed as 'endangered' by COSEWIC, SARA, and 'threatened' by ESA).
- The Asian giant softshell turtle is classified as critically endangered by the IUCN (Though said they need to be reclassified due to more concerns). It's considered an EDGE species, Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangeted.
This has been turtle facts with Buwan! Again! :)
some other related posts abt turtle facts!
#rottmnt donnie#flat fuck friday#turtle facts with ROTTMNT because I cannot shut up#donatello hamato is the softshell ever#regular buwan reblog#turtle facts n tmnt
178 notes
·
View notes
Note
What do you think is the reason that these celebrity 10/10 girls are getting cheated on? Do you think that is just the culture at that level? The place they live (hollywood) just has more promiscious men? Maybe they have bad self-esteem? What are your thoughts on why this keeps happening to them?
I think it is a horrible combination of things. The culture is definitely one of them. Hollywood breeds men who grow up thinking that women are dispensable and the double standards are also ridiculous. Even if they have good intentions and plan to be faithful, they don’t face any consequences or humiliation when they cheat so it’s almost as if they’re encouraged to do it at that point. Bad self-esteem could also be a part of it, sometimes you can tell the cheating had nothing to do with the woman they’re with and they have internal issues that they never addressed. The reason for me pointing out that 10/10 celebrities get cheated on is because if loyalty depending on looks alone, they would be bulletproof but that’s just not true. You have to choose a husband wisely and be able to offer more than your looks alone as a woman. When you compare Hollywood to the east coast or the south in the U.S. (for example), you have individuals who earn much more than the male celebrities and they do not cheat despite them having access to beautiful women. Mostly because their communities are in favor of loyalty and would refuse to do business with them or associate with them if they were to cheat on their wives. Marriages need this type of structure around them to thrive because it gives them more reasons to be faithful than to cheat, like can you imagine a man cheating and losing his family and he loses all his network to make money and his friends shun him out completely. Then he has to watch another much respectable man raise his children for him. In Hollywood people act upset at first but then practically praise them for being players and some how create a narrative to sympathize with them like “they were lonely” or “going through a hard time.” News flash, we all get lonely and face hard times but that isn’t an excuse to be a shitty human, especially if children are involved. Look at what happened with Jay-Z he was solid for a minute with Beyoncé but he screwed it up and even though they are well off financially, they want to earn more money the easy way but the wealthy men don’t trust him anymore so he’s doing suspicious businesses that may not be ethical (he might be trafficking surrogates in India). And why is Beyonce trying to act relatable on TikTok???
#hypergamous lifestyle#heaux advice#heaux tips#heauxheauxheaux#heauxlife#hypergamy#level up#spoiled heaux#spoiled gf#high maintenance
31 notes
·
View notes
Text
Fearing war with Iran, Israel asks the United States to approve the sale of 25 F-15EX fighters soon
Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 04/02/2024 - 19:47 in Military
The consequences of the Israeli airstrike on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Syria, on April 1º 2024, may mean that Israel defied an open war with Iran. Although it is militarily superior in the Middle East, and always has the support of the United States, the many fronts that Jews have to face make Israel need to prepare for various scenarios. One scenario to face the war with Iran and other Middle Eastern countries is to request the accelerated delivery of the purchase of 25 F-15EX fighters.
President Joe Biden's administration is considering whether to authorize the huge $18 billion arms transfer package to Israel, which includes the acquisition of dozens of F-15EX fighters along with weapons, three sources familiar with the matter said.
The sale of 25 Boeing F-15EX jets to Israel has been under review since the United States received a formal order in January 2023, one of the sources said. Accelerating the delivery of the planes was one of the main requests of the Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, who visited Washington last week and held talks with those responsible ?? Americans, including National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
Seeing the escalation that is taking place in the Middle East, a source said that the U.S. is now considering accelerating the sale of F-15EX fighters to Israel. The Israeli Air Force also said it intends to double the number of orders in question.
The official Request Letter (LOR) for the purchase of the F-15EX fighters was sent by the Israeli Government to the U.S. Government last week. LOR is the first stage of the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process. Indonesia had already submitted a LOR for the F-15EX acquisition plan. After sending the LOR, only then will the Agency for Cooperation for the Security of Defense (DSCA) disclose the information of the offer along with the value of the sale.
The Israeli Air Force wants 25 new F-15EX and, in parallel, will also upgrade 25 of its F-15I variants to the same avionic configuration as the F-15EX, except for the fly-by-wire system. The Israeli Air Force currently operates 50 F-15 A/B/C/D variants and 25 F-15I variants.
F-15I
When Israel made the decision to buy more F-15 and F-35, it was based on the assumption that in future combat scenarios the targets would be protected by advanced air defense systems. This would require the first wave of F-35 to neutralize the enemy's air defense systems and then the role of the F-15 to carry out subsequent attacks on enemy territory.
Although Israel has asked to speed up the acquisition of the F-15EX and Washington is considering doing so, on the other hand, it is not easy for Boeing to accelerate the production of the F-15EX, unless this is done through a 'change' in the production queue of the F-15EX (Eagle II) commissioned by the U.S. Air Force (USAF).
Tags: Military AviationBoeingF-15EXIAF - Israeli Air Force/Israel Air Force
Sharing
tweet
Fernando Valduga
Fernando Valduga
Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.
Related news
MILITARY
Boeing receives first P-8A anti-submarine aircraft for upgrades
02/04/2024 - 16:00
MILITARY
Second prototype of the Bayraktar TB3 combat drone completes 27-hour flight test
02/04/2024 - 14:00
FIDAE
FIDAE: ENAER will present the progress in the project of Chilean coach PILLAN II
02/04/2024 - 13:00
MILITARY
Light aircraft transformed into a drone attacks Russian UAV factory 1,200 km from Ukraine
02/04/2024 - 12:00
MILITARY
Guyana receives Dornier 228 planes from India
02/04/2024 - 11:00
MILITARY
Sultanate of Oman is interested in the Rafale of Dassault Aviation
02/04/2024 - 09:00
18 notes
·
View notes
Note
hi, indian ex-swiftie here! (you can use the ⏳️ to refer to me if you're still doing that) and about the desi obsession with taylor swift, I think is not completely due to her white skin. Like ofc, if taylor had been a poc things would be different, but then, her entire career would be different so yea
But it think it's similar to the white skin theory and that is the obsession with western trends. Like everytime something is going on in usa (mostly) it becomes a new shiny trend for us to adopt, and that's cuz it's somehow better (?) because the US did it, especially with gen z onwards (im a gen z btw). Like this whole desi obsession wasn't that prevalent until the US suddenly started being more obsessed with taylot since midnights. Even tiktok concepts such as "girlhood" or "girl's girl" (which is again related to some white person bs) is equally common here (we don't even have tiktok like-) and I've seen indian swifties use these things to justify their obsession or slander ppl for hating on taylor swift, just the way US swifties do. It is still an effect of colonization except instead of idolizing white skin (which if you do now, ppl would go against you- if you're a gen z or something atleast) it's saying "omg desi girlies 🎀👩🏾🦱" and simultaneously worshipping anything that emerges from the US (which is mostly some white trend, cuz those get the most internationally popular) which includes taylor. It's less liking taylor cuz she's white, and more liking taylor cuz she's white person approved (because then we can be more like white ppl or some bs)
Atleast that's my observation 🤷♀️
this is so interesting.
so the obsession with whiteness is a symptom of the obsession with the united states and the west. and the west is represented by whiteness because as you said, white trends get the most popular internationally.
so copying popular culture from the u.s. is a form of social clout in india i see i see. and it is still worshipping whiteness because whiteness extends beyond someone’s skin pigment but is a social category. so unfortunately (and confirmed by other desi anons) the worship of taylor swift is a worship of whiteness because the u.s./west is white.
do black/brown american artists who are “approved” by white people trend the same way taylor swift does? or is it only the white celebs “approved” by white people?
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Absurd Plot: When International Espionage Meets Comedic Irony
In a world where reality often surpasses fiction, a recent U.S. indictment reads like a dark comedy script. Picture this: an Indian intelligence officer orchestrates an assassination plot, only to accidentally hire an undercover DEA agent as the hitman. The target? A Sikh separatist in New York. You can’t make this up!#### The Shadowy World of Espionage: Not So Smart After All?It’s a narrative…
View On WordPress
#2023#assassination plot#counter-intelligence#dark comedy#DEA agent#espionage#geopolitical irony#Global-Politics#India#India-U.S. relations#intelligence blunder#International Relations#Satire#Sikh separatist#transnational operations#U.S. foreign policy
0 notes
Text
Across the globe, a diverse group of nations that view world politics differently from the United States are rising and flexing their diplomatic muscle in ways that are complicating American statecraft. From Africa to Latin America, to the Middle East and Asia, these emerging powers refuse to fit into traditional U.S. thinking about the world order. The successful pursuit of American interests in the mid-21st century calls for a strategy that attracts them toward the United States and its ideals but without expecting them to line up in lockstep with Washington.
“We refuse to be a pawn in a new cold war,” Indonesian President Joko Widodo, known as Jokowi, said in November 2022. His views are shared in some form or another by leaders of Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey. All 10 of these nations are either in the G-20 or have economies large enough to warrant membership. A majority of them have populations larger than Germany’s. Collectively, they make up around a third of the world’s population and a fifth of its economic production, while also constituting a major share of the so-called global south’s population and economic production.
In the next two decades, emerging powers like these will climb the ranks of the world’s largest economies and populations, reshaping the structure of world politics in the process. Their diplomacy is increasingly ambitious. And they are taking positions that run counter to those of the United States with growing boldness. Washington and its allies should accept not only that these powers are emerging, but also that as they grow stronger, they will not align with Washington’s preferences on many international issues, especially when it comes to Russia and China.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, most of these powers declined to join the U.S.-led coalition to support Ukraine, refusing to take concrete action with sanctions on Russia or weapons for Kyiv. Some emerging powers, such as India and Turkey, even expanded economic ties with Russia.
Meanwhile, several of them pursued active diplomacy to end the war, challenging the U.S. policy of supporting Ukraine “as long as it takes.” Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, for example, pitched a plan to assemble a peace club to end the war and urged Washington to “stop encouraging war and start talking about peace.” Separately, Jokowi visited Kyiv and then Moscow, urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin to start a dialogue. South Africa led a delegation of African leaders to end the war, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has maintained a working relationship with Putin and sought to keep diplomatic channels open.
Most of these emerging powers also have warm ties with Beijing. They are reluctant to do anything that would endanger their economic relations with China. On a visit to Beijing in 2023, for example, Lula pledged to work with China to “balance world geopolitics”—a phrase that implied upending American global primacy. Even India, which sees China as an adversary and has grown much closer to the United States in recent years, is very unlikely to back the United States militarily in the event of a war over Taiwan.
Washington thus needs to avoid the urge to frame this world historical moment as a neo-Cold War ideological struggle. When the United States appeals to the emerging powers to sacrifice their interests for the liberal world order, they suspect that it is simply trying to woo them for its hard-power struggles with Russia and China. Their officials are quick to cite the 2003 Iraq War as evidence that Washington is not so committed as it claims to the liberal international order. They point to the many cases where the United States has compromised on its high principles and backed autocrats. President Joe Biden’s support for Israel’s campaign in Gaza has only given them another reason to doubt the veracity of American claims to exceptional moral authority.
Most of these emerging powers have limited political headroom anyway for ideological struggles of the kind that so often animate U.S. foreign policy. Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar drove this point home when he pointed out that Europe’s ability to wean itself from Russian energy was a luxury that India did not have. “I have a population at $2,000 [per capita annual income],” he said. “I also need energy, and I am not in a position to pay high prices for oil.”
Given frictions between Washington and so many emerging powers of late, it can be tempting to disregard them and focus solely on countering Beijing and Moscow. But this would be a mistake. The emerging powers don’t pose a threat of the kind that U.S. adversaries can, but they also can’t just be ignored. China and Russia are certainly not going to ignore them—in fact, they are actively courting their leaders for political ties and market access with the hope of building a network of political and economic partners to obviate the need for ties to the West.
The emerging powers are also very open to China’s backing for alternative international institutions, such as the BRICS New Development Bank, that offer the prospect of infusions of capital without the bothersome conditions that accompany Western loans. They are critical of many aspects of the U.S.-led international order, which they see as dominated by former colonial powers and unfairly structured to serve the interests of the world’s wealthiest nations.
The good news for Washington is that the emerging powers don’t want to be vassals of China any more than they want to be vassals of America. They are not swing states ready to pick sides in a neo-Cold War. In fact, they actively seek a more fluid and multipolar world, one in which they believe they will have more leverage and freedom of maneuver. Many, moreover, maintain closer economic ties with the United States than China, especially when it comes to investment and defense cooperation.
Washington can make progress with these powers if it puts aside grand ideological framings about the liberal world order and focuses on developing a positive value proposition that offers meaningful benefit to their economic and political development, sovereignty, and aspirations for an enhanced voice in international affairs.
Although trade agreements have become politically unpopular for Republicans and Democrats alike, market access remains a powerful tool the United States has to this end. Other mutually beneficial economic arrangements are imaginable, focused on specific sectors and packages. So is cooperation on infrastructure investments, technology manufacturing, energy transition initiatives, deforestation, public health, and other areas.
Even when making progress on common interests, the emerging powers will also maintain substantial relationships with U.S. adversaries. Washington should not fall into the trap of judging the quality of its relations with the emerging powers by the strength of their ties to China or Russia.
Ultimately, the best way to engage with these nations is to help them strengthen their sovereignty so that they can resist the influence of U.S. adversaries and gain a real stake in sustaining a peaceful world order. This will take time and a change of approach but is likely to pay long-term benefits to America’s prosperity and continued global leadership.
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
January 4, 2024
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
JAN 5, 2024
The Democrats on the House Oversight Committee today released a 156-page report showing that when he was in the presidency, Trump received at least $7.8 million from 20 different governments, including those of China, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Malaysia, through businesses he owned.
The Democrats brought receipts.
According to the report—and the documents from Trump’s former accounting firm Mazars that are attached to it—the People’s Republic of China and companies substantially controlled by the PRC government paid at least $5,572,548 to Trump-owned properties while Trump was in office; Saudi Arabia paid at least $615,422; Qatar paid at least $465,744; Kuwait paid at least $300,000; India paid at least $282,764; Malaysia paid at least $248,962; Afghanistan paid at least $154,750; the Philippines paid at least $74,810; the United Arab Emirates paid at least $65,225. The list went on and on.
The committee Democrats explained that these payments were likely only a fraction of the actual money exchanged, since they cover only four of more than 500 entities Trump owned at the time. When the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January 2023, Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) stopped the investigation before Mazars had produced the documents the committee had asked for when Democrats were in charge of it. Those records included documents relating to Russia, South Korea, South Africa, and Brazil.
Trump fought hard against the production of these documents, dragging out the court fight until September 2022. The committee worked on them for just four months before voters put Republicans in charge of the House and the investigation stopped.
These are the first hard numbers that show how foreign governments funneled money to the president while policies involving their countries were in front of him. The report notes, for example, that Trump refused to impose sanctions on Chinese banks that were helping the North Korean government; one of those banks was paying him close to $2 million in rent annually for commercial office space in Trump Tower.
The first article of the U.S. Constitution reads: “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument [that is, salary, fee, or profit], Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
The report also contrasted powerfully with the attempt of Republicans on the Oversight Committee, led by Comer, to argue that Democratic Joe Biden has corruptly profited from the presidency.
In the Washington Post on December 26, 2023, Philip Bump noted that just after voters elected a Republican majority, Comer told the Washington Post that as soon as he was in charge of the Oversight Committee, he would use his power to “determine if this president and this White House are compromised because of the millions of dollars that his family has received from our adversaries in China, Russia and Ukraine.”
For the past year, while he and the committee have made a number of highly misleading statements to make it sound as if there are Biden family businesses involving the president (there are not) and the president was involved in them (he was not), their claims were never backed by any evidence. Bump noted in a piece on December 14, 2023, for example, that Comer told Fox News Channel personality Maria Bartiromo that “the Bidens” have “taken in” more than $24 million. In fact, Bump explained, Biden’s son Hunter and his business partners did receive such payments, but most of the money went to the business partners. About $7.5 million of it went to Hunter Biden. There is no evidence that any of it went to Joe Biden.
All of the committee’s claims have similar reality checks. Jonathan Yerushalmy of The Guardian wrote that after nearly 40,000 pages of bank records and dozens of hours of testimony, “no evidence has emerged that Biden acted corruptly or accepted bribes in his current or previous role.”
Still, the constant hyping of their claims on right-wing media led then–House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to authorize an impeachment inquiry in mid-September, and in mid-December, Republicans in the House formalized the inquiry.
There is more behind the attack on Biden than simply trying to even the score between him and Trump—who remains angry at his impeachments and has demanded Republicans retaliate—or to smear Biden through an “investigation,” which has been a standard technique of the Republicans since the mid-1990s.
Claiming that Biden is as corrupt as Trump undermines faith in our democracy. After all, if everyone is a crook, why does it matter which one is in office? And what makes American democracy any different from the authoritarian systems of Russia or Hungary or Venezuela, where leaders grab what they can for themselves and their followers?
Democracies are different from authoritarian governments because they have laws to prevent the corruption in which it appears Trump engaged. The fact that Republicans refuse to hold their own party members accountable to those laws while smearing their opponents says far more about them than it does about the nature of democracy.
It does, though, highlight that our democracy is in danger.
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
17 notes
·
View notes
Text
On Today’s Episode of World War III
“On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed our worst suspicions concerning the pace of Iran’s nuclear weaponization program. “Iran,” it concluded, “has increased the rate at which it is producing near weapons grade uranium in recent weeks, reversing a previous slowdown that started in the middle of this year.”
According to the IAEA, Iranian enrichment of Uranium-235 to near weapons-grade level had increased to an estimated 9 kilograms per month by the end of November. It takes just five times that amount of uranium, enriched to 90 percent, to sustain a nuclear chain reaction for one nuclear bomb.
Presently, it is believed that Iran has enriched at least 128.3 kilograms of Uranium-235 to 60 percent, and 567.1 kilograms to 20 percent. Do the math based on Iran Watch’s estimates of its current centrifuge capacity, and Iran is now capable of enriching sufficient mass to 90 percent for three nuclear bombs in less than one week. Tehran could have a fourth bomb in one to two weeks more, and a fifth within roughly one month’s time.
(…)
We are in a very different world now than when that deal was first made. Moscow and Beijing are actively engaged in the equivalent of an ideological World War III against the U.S. that is increasingly turning kinetic. Iran has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to undermine U.S. diplomacy and national security interests throughout the Middle East.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was behind the funding and planning of Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in Israel. Tehran’s plunging of Gaza into war undermined U.S. efforts to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and Iran-sponsored militias including Hezbollah and the Houthis are actively attacking U.S. military and naval forces in Iraq, Syria, Red Sea, and Gulf of Aden.
As his country nears a nuclear breakout, Khamenei is only becoming bolder. On Dec. 23, the Pentagon reported that the Chem Pluto, a chemical tanker sailing from Saudi Arabia to India, was struck in the Indian Ocean “by a drone launched from Iran.” Iranian threats against the West and Europe are also starting to come fast and furious. On Christmas Eve, Tehran threatened to close the Straits of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea.
Iran will become bolder still if allowed to achieve nuclear status. We are on borrowed time now, rapidly approaching the point wherein a kinetic response will be the only option remaining.
(…)
On the Doomsday Clock, it is already five minutes and counting past midnight in Armageddon. Unless the White House acts now, Iran’s status as a nuclear power will be a fait accompli.”
“More than 100 people were killed and scores injured Wednesday in two blasts that struck the central Iranian city of Kerman, emergency services said. Thousands of mourners had gathered there to commemorate Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani on the fourth anniversary of his assassination in a U.S. drone strike in Iraq in 2020.
A spokesman for the country’s emergency department was quoted by Iran’s state-run news agency as saying 103 people were killed and 188 were injured.
The deputy governor of Kerman, the slain general’s hometown, said the incident was a “terrorist attack,” according to Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). The explosions occurred about a half-mile from Soleimani’s burial place, on a road to the graveyard, the agency reported.
(…)
The blasts Wednesday came amid intensifying involvement by Iranian-backed militant groups in a confrontation with Israel and its principal backer, the United States, during Israel’s war in Gaza.”
“Hamas on Tuesday accused Israel of killing Saleh al-Arouri, a top leader of the group, along with two commanders from its armed wing, the Qassam Brigades. Mr. al-Arouri is the senior-most Hamas figure to be killed since Israel vowed to destroy the organization and eliminate its leadership after a deadly Hamas-led attack on Oct. 7.
Mr. al-Arouri was assassinated in an explosion in a suburb of Beirut, Lebanon’s capital, marking the first such assassination of a top Hamas official outside the West Bank and Gaza in recent years. It comes as officials across the region are worried about the war in Gaza igniting a wider conflagration.
(…)
“No one is safe if they had any hand in planning, raising money for or carrying out these attacks,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal discussions. Citing Israel’s vow to hunt down the perpetrators of the Oct. 7 attack wherever they are, the official added, “This is just the beginning, and it’ll go on for years.”
(…)
Mr. al-Arouri played a key role in Hamas’s relationships with its regional allies and in increasing Hamas’s military capabilities, according to regional and Western officials. A longtime Hamas operative, he was one of the founders of the group’s armed wing and was linked to a number of attacks on Israeli civilians, including the kidnapping and killing of three teenagers in the West Bank in 2014, which he called a “heroic operation.”
(…)
Mr. al-Arouri worked with Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s chief in Gaza, in recent years to link the group’s military wing more closely to Iran, which, regional security officials say, most likely helped the group develop some of the capabilities it used in the Oct. 7 attack. Israel has accused Mr. Sinwar of helping to plot the assault, which officials say killed about 1,200 people and saw 240 others abducted to Gaza.
(…)
Israel for decades has made assassinations of its enemies in other countries a key part of its defense strategy. In the past two weeks, Iran has accused Israel of assassinating two Iranian generals in Iraq and Syria who liaised with the regional militant groups backed by Iran. Israel has also carried out high-profile assassinations of senior Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists in Iran and Syria, including Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and Col. Sayad Khodayee, a commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps.”
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
History
New Year's Day - The most celebrated holiday around the world.
January 1, 1502 - Portuguese explorers landed at Guanabara Bay on the coast of South America and named it Rio de Janeiro (River of January). Rio de Janeiro is currently Brazil's second largest city.
January 1, 1660 - Samuel Pepys began his famous diary in which he chronicled life in London including the Great Plague of 1664-65 and the Great Fire of 1666.
January 1, 1776 - During the American Revolution, George Washington unveiled the Grand Union Flag, the first national flag in America.
January 1, 1801 - Ireland was added to Great Britain by an Act of Union thus creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
January 1, 1863 - The Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in the states rebelling against the Union.
January 1, 1877 - Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India.
January 1, 1892 - Ellis Island in New York Harbor opened. Over 20 million new arrivals to America were processed until its closing in 1954.
January 1, 1901 - The Commonwealth of Australia was founded as six former British colonies became six states with Edmund Barton as the first prime minister.
January 1, 1915 - During World War I, the British Battleship Formidable was hit by a torpedo in the English Channel, killing 547 crewmen.
January 1, 1942 - Twenty six countries signed the Declaration of the United Nations, in Washington, D.C., reaffirming their opposition to the Axis powers and confirming that no single nation would make a separate peace.
January 1, 1958 - The EEC (European Economic Community) known as the Common Market was formed by Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands in order to remove trade barriers and coordinate trade policies.
January 1, 1959 - Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba after leading a revolution that drove out Dictator Fulgencio Batista. Castro then established a Communist dictatorship.
January 1, 1973 - Britain, Ireland and Denmark became members of the Common Market (EEC).
January 1, 1975 - During the Watergate scandal, former top aides to President Nixon including former Attorney General John Mitchell, Domestic Affairs Advisor John Ehrlichman and Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, were found guilty of obstruction of justice.
January 1, 1979 - China and the U.S. established diplomatic relations, 30 years after the foundation of the People's Republic.
January 1, 1993 - Czechoslovakia broke into separate Czech and Slovak republics.
January 1, 1999 - Eleven European nations began using a new single European currency, the Euro, for electronic financial and business transactions. Participating countries included; Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
Birthday - American Patriot Paul Revere (1735-1818) was born in Boston, Massachusetts. Best known for his ride on the night of April 18, 1775, warning Americans of British plans to raid Lexington and Concord.
Birthday - Betsy Ross (1752-1836) was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She was a seamstress credited with helping to originate and sew the Stars and Stripes flag of America in 1776.
9 notes
·
View notes
Text
A Japanese or South Korean attempt to obtain nuclear weapons would be risky in many ways. It could trigger a preemptive strike—by North Korea against South Korea, for example. Even if it did not provoke an aggressive response, however, it could result in unwelcome diplomatic outcomes. It would put a serious strain on relations with the United States, which serves as the “policeman” of nonproliferation.
Thus a more likely scenario involves these countries adopting a nuclear opacity posture similar to that developed by Israel. Indeed, as the American “unipolar moment” fades, nuclear opacity may become an increasingly attractive option for regional powers facing growing geopolitical risks—and such opaque proliferation might be in line with U.S. interests as well.
[...]
Bilahari Kausikan argues that for Japan or South Korea there is no other way. An Asia in which not only China, North Korea, Russia, or India but also Japan and South Korea possess nuclear weapons, Kausikan argues, will be more stable, even if this stability would be preceded by a period of uncertainty. “Independent nuclear deterrents,” asserts Kausikan, “will keep Japan and South Korea within the U.S. alliance system. With India and Pakistan in the equation, a multipolar nuclear regional balance will freeze the existing configuration of the Indo-Pacific, preventing its domination by any single major power.” He goes on to explain that this would be tantamount to the end of the “China Dream,” insofar as the latter means a hierarchical order in Asia with the PRC at the top. Perhaps, then, the path to multipolar stability in Asia leads through nuclear opacity.
37 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
thedavidtennantconfessions
It'll be our secret
sweetmalditatah
sweetmalditatah
jewfrogs
FROG MASK AND YELLOW CAPE
divinehr
DIVINE MOTHER.