Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is ‘Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out.’ His other books include ‘My Father Was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth.’ Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net
The distance between Gaza and Namibia is measured in the thousands of kilometers. But the historical distance is much closer. This is precisely why Namibia was one of the first countries to take a strong stance against the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
Namibia was colonized by the Germans in 1884, while the British colonized Palestine in the 1920s, handing the territory to the Zionist colonizers in 1948.
Though the ethnic and religious fabric of Palestine and Namibia differ, the historical experiences are similar.
It is easy, however, to assume that the history that unifies many countries in the Global South is only that of Western exploitation and victimization. It is also a history of collective struggle and resistance.
Namibia has been inhabited since prehistoric times. This long-rooted history has allowed Namibians, over thousands of years, to establish a sense of belonging to the land and to one another, something that the Germans did not understand or appreciate.
When the Germans colonized Namibia, giving it the name of ‘German Southwest Africa,’’ they did what all other Western colonialists have done, from Palestine to South Africa to Algeria, to virtually all Global South countries. They attempted to divide the people, exploited their resources and butchered those who resisted.
Although a country with a small population, Namibians resisted their colonizers, resulting in the German decision to simply exterminate the natives, literally killing the majority of the population.
Since the start of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Namibia answered the call of solidarity with the Palestinians, along with many African and South American countries, including Colombia, Nicaragua, Cuba, South Africa, Brazil, China and many others.
Namibia rejects Germany’s Support of the Genocidal Intent of the Racist Israeli State against Innocent Civilians in Gaza
On Namibian soil, #Germany committed the first genocide of the 20th century in 1904-1908, in which tens of thousands of innocent Namibians died in the most… pic.twitter.com/ZxwWxLv8yt
Though intersectionality is a much-celebrated notion in Western academia, no academic theory is needed for oppressed, colonized nations in the Global South to exhibit solidarity with one another.
So when Namibia took a strong stance against Israel’s largest military supporter in Europe – Germany – it did so based on Namibia’s total awareness of its history.
The German genocide of the Nama and Herero people (1904-1907) is known as the “first genocide of the 20th century”. The ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza is the first genocide of the 21st century. The unity between Palestine and Namibia is now cemented through mutual suffering.
However, Namibia did not launch a legal case against Germany at the International Court of Justice (ICJ); it was Nicaragua, a Central American country thousands of miles away from Palestine and Namibia.
The Nicaraguan case accuses Germany of violating the ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.’ It rightly sees Germany as a partner in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians.
This accusation alone should terrify the German people, in fact, the whole world, as Germany has been affiliated with genocides from its early days as a colonial power. The horrific crime of the Holocaust and other mass killings carried out by the German government against Jews and other minority groups in Europe during WWII is a continuation of other German crimes committed against Africans decades earlier.
The typical analysis of why Germany continues to support Israel is explained based on German guilt over the Holocaust. This explanation, however, is partly illogical and partly erroneous.
It is illogical because if Germany has, indeed, internalized any guilt from its previous mass killings, it would make no sense for Berlin to add yet more guilt by allowing Palestinians to be butchered en masse. If guilt indeed exists, it is not genuine. It is erroneous because it completely overlooks the German genocide in Namibia. It took the German government until 2021 to acknowledge the horrific butchery in that poor African country, ultimately agreeing to pay merely one billion euros in ‘community aid,’ which will be allocated over three decades.
The German government’s support of the Israeli war on Gaza is not motivated by guilt but by a power paradigm that governs the relations among colonial countries. Many countries in the Global South understand this logic very well, thus the growing solidarity with Palestine.
A photo titled “Captured Hereros,” taken circa 1904 by German colonists in Namibia. Photo | German Historical Museum
The Israeli brutality in Gaza, but also the Palestinian sumud, resilience and resistance, are inspiring the Global South to reclaim its centrality in anti-colonial liberation struggles.
The revolution in the Global South’s outlook—culminating in South Africa’s case at the ICJ and the Nicaraguan lawsuit against Germany—indicates that change is not the outcome of a collective emotional reaction. Instead, it is part and parcel of the shifting relationship between the Global South and the Global North.
Africa has been undergoing a process of geopolitical restructuring for years. The anti-French rebellions in West Africa, demanding true independence from the continent’s former colonial masters, and the intense geopolitical competition involving Russia, China and others are all signs of changing times. And with this rapid rearrangement, a new political discourse and popular rhetoric are emerging, often expressed in the revolutionary language emanating from Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali and others.
But the shift is not happening only on the rhetorical front. The rise of BRICS as a powerful new platform for economic integration between Asia and the rest of the Global South has opened up the possibility of alternatives to Western financial and political institutions.
In 2023, it was revealed that BRICS countries hold 32 percent of the world’s total GDP, compared to 30 percent held by the G7 countries. This has much political value, as four of the five original founders of BRICS are strong and unapologetic supporters of the Palestinians.
While South Africa has been championing the legal front against Israel, Russia and China are battling the US at the UN Security Council to institute a ceasefire. Beijing’s Ambassador to The Hague defended the Palestinian armed struggle as legitimate under international law.
Now that global dynamics are working in favor of Palestinians, it is time for the Palestinian struggle to return to the embrace of the Global South, where shared histories will always serve as a foundation for meaningful solidarity.
Feature photo | Hon. Yvonne Dausab, Minister of Justice of Namibia, joined representatives of over 50 nations in presenting testimony to the International Court of Justice on the legality of the Israeli occupation. Photo | International Court of Justice
World War III is here, playing out asymmetrically in military, financial, and institutional battlefields, and the fight is an existential one. The western Hegemon, in truth, is at war against international law, and only ‘kinetic military action’ can bring it to heel.
The Axis of Asymmetry is in full swing. These are the state and non-state actors employing asymmetrical moves on the global chessboard to sideline the US-led western rules-based order. And its vanguard is the Yemeni resistance movement Ansarallah.
Ansarallah is absolutely relentless. They have downeda $30 million MQ-9 Reaper drone with just a $10k indigenous missile.
They are the first in the Global South ever to use anti-ship ballistic missiles against Israel-bound and/or -protecting commercial and US Navy ships.
For all practical purposes, Ansarallah is at war with no less than the US Navy.
Ansarallah has captured one of the US Navy’s ultra-sophisticated autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV), the $1.3 million Remus 600, a torpedo-shaped underwater drone able to carry a massive payload of sensors.
Next stop: reverse engineering in Iran? The Global South eagerly awaits, ready to pay in currencies bypassing the US dollar.
All of the above – a maritime 21st-century remix of the Ho Chi Minh trail during the Vietnam War – spells out that the Hegemon may not even qualify as a paper tiger, but rather as a paper leech.
Lula tells it as the Global South sees it
Into the Big Picture – linked to the relentless ongoing genocide perpetrated by Israel in Gaza – steps a true leader of the Global South, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Lula spoke in the name of Brazil, Latin America, Africa, BRICS 10, and the overwhelming majority of the Global South when he cut to the chase and defined the Gaza tragedy for what it is: a genocide. No wonder the Zionist tentacles across the Global North – plus its Global South vassals – went bonkers.
The genocidals in Tel Aviv declared Lula as persona non grata in Israel. Yet Lula did not assassinate 29,000+ Palestinians – the overwhelming majority of whom were women and children.
History will be unforgiving: it’s the genocidals that will eventually be judged as personae non grata to all of humanity.
What Lula said represented BRICS 10 in action: this was obviously cleared before with Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and, of course, the African Union. Lula spoke in Addis Ababa, and Ethiopia is now a BRICS 10 member.
The Brazilian president was extremely smart in timing his Gaza fact-check to be on the table during the G20 meeting of Foreign Ministers in Rio. Way beyond BRICS 10, what’s happening in Gaza is a consensus among the non-Western G20 partners – who are actually a majority. No one, though, should expect any serious follow-up inside a divided G20. The heart of the matter remains in the facts on the ground.
Yemen’s fight for “our people” in Gaza is a matter of humanistic, moral, and religious solidarity – these are foundational tenets of the rising eastern “civilizational” powers, both domestically and in international affairs. This convergence of principles has now created a direct link – extrapolating to the moral and spiritual spheres – between the Axis of Resistance in West Asia and the Slavic Axis of Resistance in Donbass.
Extreme attention should be paid to the timescale. The Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) forces and Russia have spent two hard-fought years in Novorossiya just to arrive at the stage where it becomes clear – based on the battlefield and cumulative facts on the ground – that “negotiations” mean only the terms of Kiev’s surrender.
In contrast, the job of the Axis of Resistance in West Asia has not even started. It’s fair to argue that its strength and full sovereign involvement have not been deployed yet (think Hezbollah and Iran).
Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, with his proverbial subtlety, has hinted there’s, in fact, nothing to negotiate on Palestine. And if there would be a return to any borders, these would be the 1948 borders. The Axis of Resistance understands that the whole Zionist Project is unlawful and immoral. But the question remains how to throw it, in practice, into the dustbin of History?
Possible – avowedly optimistic – scenarios ahead would include Hezbollah taking possession of the Galilee as a step toward the eventual retaking of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Yet the fact remains that even a united Palestine does not have the military capability to reconquer stolen Palestinian lands.
So the questions posed by the overwhelming majority of the Global South that stands with Lula may be: Who else, apart from Ansarallah, Hezbollah, Hashd al-Shaabi, will join the Axis of Asymmetry in the fight for Palestine? Who would be willing to come to the Holy Land and die? (After all, in Donbass, it’s only Russians and Russophones who are dying for historically Russian lands)
And that brings us to the way towards the endgame: only a West Asian Special Military Operation (SMO), to the bitter end, will settle the Palestinian tragedy. A translation of what happens across the Slavic Axis of Resistance: “Those who refuse to negotiate with Lavrov, deal with Shoigu.”
The menu, the table, and the guests
That out-of-his-depth closet neocon, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, let the cat out of the bag when he actually defined his much cherished “rules-based international order”: “If you’re not on the table, you are on the menu.”
Following his own hegemonic logic, it’s clear that Russia and the US/NATO are on the table while Ukraine is on the menu. What about the Red Sea? The Houthis defending Palestine against US–UK–Israel are clearly on the table, while Western vassals supporting Israel in a maritime way are clearly on the menu.
And that’s the problem: the Hegemon – or, in Chinese scholarly terminology, “the crusaders” – have lost the power to place the name cards on the table. The main reason for this authority collapse is the build-up of serious international meetings sponsored by the Russia–China strategic partnership during the past two years since the start of the SMO. It’s all about sequential planning, with long-term targets clearly outlined.
Only civilizational states can do that – not plutocratic neoliberal casinos.
Negotiating with the Hegemon is impossible because the Hegemon itself prevents negotiations (see the serial blocking of ceasefire resolutions at the UN). Additionally, the Hegemon excels in instrumentalizing its client elites across the Global South via threats or kompromat: see the hysterical reaction of Brazilian mainstream media to Lula’s verdict on Gaza.
What Russia is showing the Global South, two years after the start of the SMO, is that the only path to teach a lesson to the Hegemon has to be kinetic, or “military-technical.”
The problem is no nation-state can compare to nuclear/hypersonic/military superpower Russia, in which 7.5 percent of the government’s budget is dedicated to military production. Russia is and will remain on a permanent war footing until Hegemon’s elites come to their senses – and that may never happen.
Meanwhile, West Asia’s Axis of Resistance is watching and learning, day after day. It’s always crucial to keep in mind that for all the resistance movements across the Global South – and that also includes, for instance, West Africans against French neo-colonialism – the geopolitical fault lines could not be starker.
It’s a matter of the collective West versus Islam; the collective West versus Russia; and sooner rather than later, a substantial part of the West, even reluctantly, versus China.
The fact is we are already immersed in a World War that is both existential and civilizational. As we stand at the crossroads, there is a bifurcation: either escalation towards overt “kinetic military action,” or a multiplication of Hybrid Wars across several latitudes.
So it’s up to the Axis of Asymmetry, cool, calm, and collected, to forge the underground corridors, passages, and trails capable of undermining and subverting the US-led, unipolar, rules-based international order.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Mohamed Sweidan is a strategic studies researcher, a writer for different media platforms, and the author of several studies in the field of international relations. Mohamed’s main focus is on Russian affairs, Turkish politics, and the relationship between energy security and geopolitics.
Germany ostensibly supports Israel to pay for the sins of its Nazi past, yet Berlin’s support of ethnocentric, exclusivist Zionism is the very essence of Nazism.
Since the 7 October Al-Aqsa Flood operation tore to shreds Israel’s security delusion, the west has rallied staunchly behind Tel Aviv, offering unwavering support across political, military, media, intelligence, and other domains.
Amid this display of western unity, Germany has distinguished itself, standing prominently at the forefront of the EU as a fervent advocate for Israel and a solid opponent of any form of assistance to Palestinians, even the children among them. This, despite that the Israeli army has killed over 10,000 infants and children in Gaza since the start of its air and ground assault two months ago.
Less than a week after Al-Aqsa Flood, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz offered up military aid toward Israel’s Gaza campaign, saying:
“At this moment, there is only one place for Germany — the place at Israel’s side … Our own history, our responsibility arising from the Holocaust, makes it a perpetual task for us to stand up for the security of the State of Israel.”
According to Scholz and his ilk, Germany must constantly redeem itself by shielding the Jewish generations that followed World War II. But then why does Berlin not feel a similar obligation to protect the non-Jewish Slavic civilians, whose numbers killed by Nazi Germany equal those of the Jewish victims?
Germany’s ‘guilt complex’
The German “guilt complex” has manifested itself through annual payments exceeding $1 billion since the end of WWII in 1945. These reparations, totaling approximately $86.8 billion to Israel between 1945 and 2018, were recently extended until 2027.
While these funds are ostensibly meant to compensate Jews for the horrors inflicted by Nazi Germany, a closer examination of the historical figures raises doubts about the coherence of the German narrative.
The enormous death toll of 17 million people at the hands of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 includes 6 million Jews and 5.7 million Soviet civilians. Yet other sources claim that the number of ethnic Slavic deaths far surpasses that of Jews. Shockingly, Nazi Germany, driven by radical ideological policies, is documented to have killed 10,547,000 ethnic Slavics compared to 5,291,000 Jews.
If we look closer, we find that the majority of the Slav civilians killed were from Poland, Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, predominantly from Orthodox Christian backgrounds. Why, then, are they not receiving reparation payments out of a similar sense of German guilt, which weighs on the conscience of Germany’s leaders?
This, in turn, raises questions about the true motivations behind supporting and financially aiding Israel – whether it is a principled stance as Berlin outwardly promotes, or merely a political maneuver.
Hitler’s hostility to non-Jews
Historical records reveal a lesser-explored dimension of Adolf Hitler’s hostility, namely that his animosity toward Eastern Christians was not markedly different from his hostility toward Jews.
This aspect of his reign of terror is often overlooked for political expediency. The Nazis propagated a warped vision where the “superior” German race was destined to rule over the supposedly “inferior” Slavic peoples, framing it as a crusade to rescue western civilization from these so-called eastern barbarians.
Numerous historical references attest to the atrocities inflicted upon Orthodox Christians by the Nazis, yet this suffering is often overshadowed by more widely acknowledged war crimes.
In the aftermath of WWII, the US extended crucial material support to European allied forces through the Marshall Plan, a comprehensive initiative designed to facilitate the reconstruction and resurgence of war-torn Europe. Notably, former West Germany emerged as the third-largest beneficiary of this aid package.
However, this assistance came with a tacit expectation from Washington for Berlin to align itself closely with US interests, a path Germany has adhered to ever since. Crucially, this created a trajectory that transformed Germany into an ardent supporter of Zionism, ironically, an ethnocentric political ideology that idealizes both supremacy and exclusivity.
The ongoing Ukraine war reveals the extent to which Germany has slavishly prioritized US interests over its own. Although German and Russian interests have converged often in recent times, this rapprochement did not cross US red lines until their joint NordStream2 pipeline project came online in early 2022. When German allegiances were tested, as during the US-fueled Ukraine war, Berlin proved to be utterly loyal to Washington – despite the accute blowback to its own economy.
Germany’s alignment with Zionism
Germany – like much of the west – treats the global community with a perceptible air of superiority, framed as the “democratic” preeminence of the west over the rest.
When the Global South masses, who form most of the “international community,” voiced their opposition to Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, Chancellor Scholz nonchalantly insisted that “Israel is a democracy – this has to be said very clearly.”
In fact, in Berlin’s view, the battle today is between the “western democracies” represented by Israel and others who “do not deserve to live.” This is the essence of Nazism, which has clearly never left Germany.
Modern echoes of Nazi thought are still present in Germany’s exceptional positions, exemplified by a notable surge in weapon exports to the occupation state. According to the German Economy Ministry, from the beginning of the current year until 2 November, Berlin approved exports totaling about 303 million euros ($323 million) to Israel, a staggering tenfold increase from 2022 trade data.
According to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), between 2018 and 2022, the vast majority – 99 percent – of Israel’s arms imports came from the US (79 percent) and Germany (20 percent).
Moreover, the German state of Saxony-Anhalt recently announced that recognition of Israel’s existence through a written letter has become a prerequisite for obtaining German citizenship.
Berlin’s faith in western supremacy
In blind support of its pro-Israel stance, Germany takes a hardline approach against any form of solidarity with Palestinian civilians. Pro-Palestine demonstrations have been banned, and individuals advocating for the rights of Palestinian children have faced arrest.
This posture is not just in response to the current Gaza war but instead aligns with the enduring principles of German foreign policy, as outlined in its national security strategy, which emphasizes in its opening paragraphs a permanent commitment to Israel’s right to exist.
Chancellor Scholz, in the wake of the Ukrainian conflict, characterized the global situation as a “turning point,” while stressing Germany’s obligation to stand on the right side of history. His statements reveal that Berlin sees itself as a vanguard defender of western hegemony at a time of transformative shifts in the global order.
The German authorities’ approach to the Gaza conflict should be viewed through their increasingly bipolar worldview. Like all Atlanticists, Berlin sees Gaza as a battlefield between advocates for western hegemony in West Asia – necessitating a robust, empowered Israel – and those actively challenging the western role in the emerging multipolar order.
Berlin’s stance becomes a manifestation of faith in the supremacy of the western axis and a perceived necessity to eliminate those who pose a challenge to this “prestige,” which is the essence of Nazism.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
رغم انشغال العالم بالحرب العالمية الثالثة المنضبطة الدائرة على الأراضي الأوكرانية، التي تحاول من خلالها القوى الدولية العظمى والقوى الفاعلة ترسيم توازنات النظام العالمي لسنين مقبلة، والتي غطت تداعياتها بقدر كبير على مجريات الأحداث في منطقتنا التي لا تزال الأكثر اشتعالاً منذ عقود، فإن حقائق الجغرافيا وعقَد المواصلات البرية والبحرية عادت لتفرض حضور منطقة المشرق العربي وامتداداته في منطقة غرب آسيا كساحة رئيسة في أي عملية تحول جذري في التوازنات العالمية.
يمكن قراءة عودة اهتمام القوى الدولية بمنطقة المشرق العربي ضمن معركة صياغة عالم ما بعد الأحادية القطبية في أكثر من مفصل مؤخراً، كان منها حضور الصين المفاجئ كراعٍ للتفاهم السعودي الإيراني في آذار/مارس 2023.
كذلك، كان من تلك المظاهر إعادة نشر مقاتلات أميركية متطورة في المشرق العربي مؤخراً، بصرف النظر عن أن إعادة الانتشار تلك لم تكن مؤشراً على تحول في الاستراتيجية الأميركية العامة المبنية على عدم التورط في حرب جديدة في المنطقة.
أخيراً، جاءت زيارة الرئيس بشار الأسد والوفد السوري المرافق لبكين في أيلول/سبتمبر 2023، بناءً على دعوة من الرئيس الصيني، وذلك لحضور حفل افتتاح دورة الألعاب الآسيوية، بحضور نحو 12 من رؤساء الدول الآسيوية، ولتوقيع الرئيسين الصيني والسوري على اتفاقية الشراكة الاستراتيجية بين البلدين.
وقد قرأ البعض في تلك الزيارة رفيعة المستوى سعياً لتغيير المشهد الجيوسياسي الإقليمي، ونزعة صينية متزايدة لتحدي الهيمنة الأميركية التقليدية في المنطقة، لكن ضمن المحددات العامة للسياسة الخارجية الصينية التي تتسم بالحذر المدروس وبالتقدم البطيء نسبياً في المحافل الدولية.
يأتي ازدياد الحضور الصيني في ساحة المشرق العربي، لينضم إلى مجموع المؤثرات الدولية الأخرى القائمة في المنطقة أصلاً، فقد استعادت روسيا موقعها كمؤثر رئيس في مجرى أحداث المنطقة خلال الأعوام القليلة الماضية، لتصبح على قدم المساواة مع الحضور الأميركي المستمر والتقليدي في المنطقة من جهة التأثير.
وبهذا، صارت هذه العوامل الدولية مجتمعة تشكل واحداً من 3 ضوابط مفصلية تتحكم في توقيت الحرب الإقليمية الشاملة بين محور المقاومة والكيان المؤقت، بحسب ما يرى هذا المقال.
تعد فكرة الحرب الإقليمية أو ما يسميه البعض الانتقال إلى مرحلة الهجوم المعاكس الشامل من أكثر المواضيع تداولاً في الصالونات السياسية هذه الأيام، فالتساؤلات تدور عما إذا كانت هناك في الأفق حرب إقليمية مقبلة؟ ومتى تقع؟ وكيف ستكون طبيعتها؟
ولا يمكن واقعياً الجزم بالإجابة عن هذه التساؤلات، ولكن من الممكن محاولة حصر العوامل التي تشكل الإطار الحاكم لاحتمال نشوب حرب إقليمية شاملة، ووضعها ضمن 3 ضوابط أساسية: اثنان يدفعان نحو الحرب، وثالث آخر مثبط، على النحو الآتي:
الضابط الأول: اختلال موازين القوى
تشير الوقائع وطريقة تعاطي الأطراف الإقليمية مع الأحداث إلى حصول تبدل ملموس في موازين القوى التي كانت تحكم الإقليم لعقود، فإحجام الكيان المؤقت عن شن حرب واسعة على حزب الله في لبنان منذ 2006 من أجل القضاء على قوته أو تحييد خطره على أقل تقدير، وذلك رغم مراكمة الحزب المطردة لعناصر القوة العسكرية التي وصلت فيما وصلت إليه إلى حد امتلاكه الصواريخ الدقيقة وإنشائه “مطار الجبور” العسكري في جنوب لبنان على بعد 20 كيلومتراً فقط من الحدود مع فلسطين المحتلة.
يُضاف إلى ذلك عدم قدرة “جيش” الاحتلال على اجتياح قطاع غزة برياً لإنهاء وجود فصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية المسلحة فيه، بل على العكس، باتت الفصائل الفلسطينية تقيم المناورات العسكرية تحت مرأى ومسمع من “جيش” الاحتلال من دون أن يقوم بأي رد فعل يذكر، وذلك بسبب مجموعة حسابات معقدة عن الخسائر والأرباح لم يكن الكيان المؤقت ليقيم لها بالاً في الماضي القريب.
لقد جاءت حادثة خيمة حزب الله التي نصبها في مزارع شبعا لتختصر صورة الديناميكيات الجديدة التي باتت تحكم محدودية قدرة الكيان المؤقت على توظيف “جيشه” في مواجهة قوى التحرر العربي والإسلامي، ناهيك بعدم قيامه بعملية عسكرية ضد المشروع النووي الإيراني رغم تهديداته المتكررة بذلك، وحصره المواجهة في هذا المجال بالعمليات الأمنية والاستخباراتية، وذلك تفادياً لحرب لا يستطيع التنبؤ بمداها ونتائجها.
لطالما كانت حسابات الأطراف المتقابلة لتوازنات القوة فيما بينها العامل الأول المؤثر في نشوء الحروب في التجارب التاريخية عموماً، ويبدو أن أركان محور المقاومة باتت تشعر بفائض قوة يمكنها من الضغط على العدو في أكثر من ساحة وتجاوز خطوط كان يَعدها العدو حمراً في الماضي. كان هذا يجري تحت سقف رسمته لنفسها قوى محور المقاومة -أقله حتى اللحظة- يقضي بعدم الدخول في حرب مفتوحة في الإقليم ضمن معادلة “لا نريد الحرب، لكننا لا نخشاها”.
لكن لأي مدى يمكن أن يستمر اللعب على خطوط التماس من دون خروج الأمر عن دائرة التحكّم؟ كيف إذا كان تبدل موازين القوى لا يمكن رصده فعلياً من دون اختباره في الميدان بصورة عملية من خلال الحرب، ناهيك بإمكانية تبدل معادلة محور المقاومة طبقاً للظروف لتغدو: “نريد الحرب ولا نخشاها”؟
الضابط الثاني: صلابة مواقف الأطراف
ترى قوى التحرر العربي والإسلامي في المدى المتوسط إمكانية واقعية لإزالة الكيان المؤقت الذي تعده عنصراً أساسياً في إدامة منظومة الهيمنة الغربية التي تعرقل التنمية في المنطقة واستقرارها، حالها في ذلك حال باقي دول “الجنوب العالمي” التي ترزح تحت الهيمنة الغربية.
تتجلى الشواهد على ذلك في صراع امتد لعقود، كان آخرها مثلاً رفض الجمهورية الإسلامية القاطع لعروض قدمتها لها بعض الدول، تقضي بمقايضة تخفيف الغارات الجوية الإسرائيلية المتكررة على قواتها في الأراضي السورية، في مقابل تخفيف الدعم الذي تقدمه لفصائل المقاومة الفلسطينية المسلحة، ولا سيما في ساحة الضفة، ما عدته الجمهورية الإسلامية طرحاً يتناقض مع طبيعتها وأسس تكوينها العقائدي.
وكان رد محور المقاومة العملي في المقابل البدء بنقل بعض المنشآت العسكرية الإيرانية في سوريا إلى أماكن محصنة تحت الأرض، في محاولة لتقليص آثار الغارات الجوية الإسرائيلية، كما رشح من بعض المصادر.
كما أن خطوة إنشاء حزب الله “مطار الجبور” العسكري بالتعاون مع الجمهورية الإسلامية جاءت في السياق ذاته، إذ يمكن استخدامه -إضافة إلى كونه منصة هجوم على مواقع الاحتلال في الأراضي الفلسطينية المحتلة- كمهبط لطائرات نقل عسكرية متوسطة الحجم إذا اقتضت الحاجة ذلك، ما يؤمن لحزب الله خط إمداد آخر إلى جانب الخط البري الواصل عبر الأراضي السورية، متجاوزاً بذلك تهديد الغارات الإسرائيلية على شحنات السلاح المزعومة.
أما فلسطينياً، فمِن الواضح أن فصائل المقاومة المسلحة الفلسطينية ليست في وارد الدخول في تسويات مع الكيان المؤقت، منطلقةً بذلك من تكوينها العقائدي، ومن تجربة خدعة السلام ومسار “أوسلو” الذي انعكس ضرراً كبيراً على مسار التحرير. ويتجلى هذا المسار في تركيزها على تصعيد العمل المقاوم في الضفة وتطويره، بما تمثله الضفة من ساحة اشتباك استراتيجية مع الاحتلال.
نجد في المقلب الآخر أن الكيان المؤقت لا يستطيع التراجع طوعاً، ولو خطوة واحدة، إلى الوراء، فأي تراجع من ناحيته سيعد ضربة جديدة تقربه من تفككه، ناهيك بكينونته الاستيطانية والإحلالية وطبيعته الوظيفية في المنطقة اللتين تحولان دون تحوله إلى جسم منسجم مع محيطه الإقليمي.
لا يحتاج هذا الأمر إلى كثير من التدليل؛ فيكفي النظر إلى مخططاته المعلنة الرامية إلى تهجير العدد الأكبر من فلسطينيي الضفة وأراضي فلسطين 1948 على حد سواء، وعزمه الصريح على تهويد القدس، وهدم المسجد الأقصى، وتهديد الأماكن المقدسة الإسلامية والمسيحية في فلسطين المحتلة. كل هذا برغم ما قدمته له السلطة الفلسطينية مع دول التطبيع من تنازلات ترقى إلى مستوى الخيانات الوطنية، ورغم ما أبدته هذه الأطراف أمامه من انبطاح وخنوع.
إذاً، طبقاً لهذا الوضع الجيوسياسي الهش بين الأطراف المتقابلة، ستبقى خطوط التماس غير مستقرة، وستزداد مع الوقت احتمالات اشتعال الجبهات، إذ لن يستقر الإقليم إلا بإحدى حالتين:
– تسوية كبرى لا تلوح في الأفق، فكل ما شهدته المنطقة في العامين أو الأعوام الثلاثة الماضية كان مجرد تسويات موضعية أشبه ما تكون بالمسكنات التي تؤخر الانفجار الكبير.
– صدام إقليمي ترسم نتائجه شكل الإقليم المقبل وتوازناته، وهذا ما يبدو أقرب إلى الواقع حتى حينه.
الضابط الثالث: العامل الدولي
يعدّ الضابطان الأول والثاني دافعين نحو وقوع الحرب الإقليمية الشاملة، فيما يؤدي العامل الدولي دور الضابط المثبط في هذه المعادلة المتشابكة، إذ لا يمكن تجاهل تأثير الولايات المتحدة القوي في المنطقة واستراتيجيتها المبنية على منع تفجر الأوضاع في الإقليم في هذه الحقبة.
وقد تجلت تلك الاستراتيجية في أكثر من محطة، كان منها على سبيل المثال لا الحصر الموقف الأميركي الضاغط نحو التهدئة في معركة “سيف القدس” عام 2021، والوساطة التي قادتها لإبرام اتفاق ترسيم الحدود البحرية بين الدولة اللبنانية وكيان الاحتلال 2022، ضمن سياسة تفكيك الألغام القابلة للانفجار في المنطقة عبر التسويات المحدودة والموضعية، إضافة إلى رفضها المستمر للسير وراء الضغوط الإسرائيلية الداعية إلى مهاجمة الجمهورية الإسلامية عسكرياً على خلفية المشروع النووي الإيراني.
أما بالنسبة إلى روسيا، التي بات لها وجود إقليمي لا يقل أهمية عن الحضور الأميركي، فهي ليست معنية باشتعال الأوضاع في المنطقة أو بأن تكون جزءاً مباشراً في الصراع العربي-الإسلامي الإسرائيلي.
يبدو هذا واضحاً من سلوكها في التغاضي عن الغارات الإسرائيلية المستمرة على الأراضي السورية، أقله حتى هذه اللحظة، فروسيا بغنى عن الدخول في صدام مع الحليف الأول لأميركا والغرب عموماً في المنطقة، إضافة إلى علاقاتها مع الكيان المؤقت التي تضعها بالحسبان ضمن استراتيجياتها العامة.
ولعل روسيا تطمح إلى أداء دور عراب “السلام” في المستقبل بين الكيان المؤقت ودول المنطقة، ذلك بمعزل عن مدى صحة هذه القراءة الروسية للوضع الإقليمي وفرص نجاحها.
يبقى الحضور الصيني المتزايد والمستجد في الإقليم الذي لا بد من أنه سيكون من ضمن أولوياته تهدئة الأوضاع، وذلك بهدف تأمين بيئة آمنة للاستثمارات الصينية التجارية في الإقليم ومشروعها الاستراتيجي “الحزام والطريق”.
يشكّل العامل الدولي ثقلاً كبيراً لا يستهان به ضمن معادلة الضوابط الثلاث الحاكمة لنشوب حرب إقليمية شاملة، لكن ما دام العامل الدولي لم يرتقِ إلى مرتبة القدرة على عقد تسويات كبرى في المنطقة، فإنه سيظل عامل تثبيط مؤقتاً من دون أن يصل إلى مستوى تحقيق الاستقرار الدائم، وهذا ما يرجح أن تكون عليه الحال.
ضابط إضافي؟
يرى البعض في كون الطبقة السياسية الحاكمة في الكيان حالياً، التي يسيطر عليها المستوطنون والصهيونية الدينية الأكثر تطرفاً، عاملاً آخر يدفع نحو الحرب. هذا التقدير يحمل الكثير من الصحة في طياته بقدر أن رعونة وحمْق الطبقة الحاكمة في الكيان يمكن أن يدفعاها إلى خطوة في الأراضي المحتلة تؤدي إلى إشعال الجبهات، لكن مع هذا، يظل كيان الاحتلال محكوماً بمؤسسات متجذرة ترتبط بأجهزة “الجيش” والاستخبارات التي تصوغ تقديراتها وتوصياتها عادة بناءً على حقائق الميدان وبحِرفية.
ولا يمكن بحال تجاهل التأثير الأميركي الوازن في قرارات الكيان المرتبطة بشن الحروب، ويعد الحد من حجم النفوذ الأميركي في الكيان وتأثيره جزءاً من المعركة الداخلية المحتدمة بين المعارضة وحكومة الاحتلال هذه الأيام، لكن هذه المعركة لم يتم حسمها بعد، والأرجح ألا يكون هناك أي تبدل لمستوى النفوذ الأميركي على قرارات الكيان لأسباب لا محل لنقاشها هنا.
خاتمة
تعيش المنطقة العربية والإسلامية حالة من عدم الاستقرار منذ 1922، مما اصطلح عليه ديفيد فرومكين عبارة “سلام ما بعده سلام”، إذ دخلت المنطقة منذ ذاك الحين مرحلة شاذة تتنافى مع تكوينها العمراني وعمقها التاريخي الذي جعل منها منطقة مشتعلة على الدوام، وقنبلة موقوتة تنتظر الانفجار متى توفرت الظروف الملائمة لذلك، وليس هناك سبيل موضوعي كي تستعيد المنطقة استقرارها -أقله النسبي- إلا بخروجها من الحالة الشاذة التي تعيشها منذ نحو قرن من الزمن وإزالة الكيان المؤقت الذي يعد أحد أبرز أسباب إدامة عدم الاستقرار في المنطقة، بما يمثله من امتداد للوجود الغربي الاستعماري داخل الإقليم.
إذا كانت حال المنطقة تحاكي قنبلة موقوتة، فإن مجموع العوامل والظروف الإقليمية في هذه الحقبة تقترب أكثر فأكثر لتوفير صاعق التفجير.
يسابق الزمن هذه الأيام بين أمرين؛ نضوج ظروف التسويات الكبرى الدولية في معركة رسم عالم ما بعد الأحادية القطبية التي ستنعكس حتماً على المنطقة، بصرف النظر عن رضا الأطراف، ونضوج الظروف تماماً لحرب إقليمية شاملة أو وقوع خطأ في التقدير من أحد الخصوم الإقليميين يخرِج الأوضاع عن السيطرة، فأي الظروف ستنضج أولاً، علماً بأن التسويات الكبرى الدولية ليست قريبة، وطريقها ما زال متعرجاً ومليئاً بالمفاجآت؟
يظل السؤال العالق الذي يؤرق بال الكثيرين: هل فعلاً من مصلحة قوى التحرر العربي والإسلامي انتظار مجيء التسويات الكبرى الدولية لتكرار تجربة 1922 سيئة الذكر؟
ن الآراء المذكورة في هذه المقالة لا تعبّر بالضرورة عن رأي الميادين وإنما تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها حصراً
Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is ‘Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out’. His other books include ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website iswww.ramzybaroud.net
From its very onset, Israel has constructed a brand for itself, a powerful gimmick that was predicated on two main pillars: democracy and stability.
The main target audience for this brand has been powerful Western states that wielded disproportionate political, economic and military powers.
These Western governments, along with their influential mainstream corporate media, did their part, by polishing Israel’s image – as most democratic and most stable – while tarnishing that of their Arab and Palestinian enemies – or anyone else who dared criticize Israel.
It mattered little whether Israel was truly a beacon of democracy and stability, because these terms are often conjured up and used to conveniently fit the interest of those in power.
To maintain the charade, Israel’s task was fairly straightforward: conveying a facade of democracy at home – even if this democracy is racially-oriented and exclusionist – and providing enough ‘stability’ to allow foreign companies to trust that their investments in Israel are safe.
Actual, verifiable truth, in these kinds of situations, is hardly relevant. All that matters are slogans and cliches – and enough people in power who are willing to repeat those slogans, and even believe in the cliches.
Over the years, Israel thus emerged as the “only democracy in the Middle East” and an “oasis of freedom and stability” that is protected by “the most moral army in the world”, and so on.
But this pseudo-reality can only exist in relative terms; for Israel to be elevated, the Arabs had to be tarnished and demeaned, despite the fact that it was Israel that illegally occupied Arab land and waged repeated wars on Palestinians and other Arab nations.
The perfect illustration, until recently, of the successful Israel model is a statement made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on September 13, 2012, almost precisely 11 years ago.
Toasting top military commanders at the Israeli Army General Staff Forum on the occasion of Rosh Hashanah, Netanyahu summed up Israel’s sense of triumphalism in a few words.
“We live in a volatile and stormy region. Its explosions and storms are increasing. The strength of the IDF has helped ensure that we remain an island of stability amidst the storms,” Netanyahu said.
Two facts may have escaped Netanyahu, back then. One, that much of the “explosions and storms” in the modern history of the Middle East were outcomes of Israel’s own doing – military invasions, occupation and other destabilizing factors.
And, two, in the words of Heraclitus: “The only constant in life is change”.
11 years after that declaration, Israel is now learning that it is no longer isolated from the “volatile and stormy region”.
It is important to underscore that the long-perceived Middle Eastern ‘chaos’, as juxtaposed with Israel’s ‘stability’, are not inherent values in history.
The Middle East – in fact, much of the Global South – has remained victim to former Western colonial powers for many decades.
Rarely a coup, a revolution, a political crisis or an economic collapse experienced in that part of the world, has taken place without Western involvement, direct or otherwise.
Arabs, the architects of one of the greatest and longest-lasting civilizations in human history, are not innately ‘chaotic’, as Israel and its Western benefactors maintained through their relentless propaganda.
Such a conversation is now outdated, anyway, as Israel, itself, now epitomizes political instability and social chaos.
A viral video dating September 7 showed dozens of Israeli soldiers from the ‘elite’ Golani Brigade destroying their own military base.
The leaked video could be dismissed as an isolated incident if it were not for the fact that at least 10,000 Israeli army reservists have declared that they will not join their military units if Netanyahu’s judicial reforms are confirmed.
Thousands have already refrained from returning to the army, and the number is in constant increase, while hundreds of thousands of Israelis continue to occupy the major squares of all Israeli cities, demanding an end to what they perceive as a far-right coup.
Israeli military analysts and highly-regarded journalists are engaging in political and moral questions that would have been, only a few years ago, considered unconceivable: what if the army turns against the people? What if the people overthrow the government? What if Israel is no longer a democracy?
In fact, many already agreed that the latter scenario has already actualized.
They include two former heads of Israel’s powerful internal security service, the Shin Bet. In a letter, made public on August 31, they urged US President Joe Biden not to meet Netanyahu.
Such a visit would be seen as “legitimizing the government coup,” they wrote, accusing the Israeli leader of “causing severe damage” to Israel, particularly the “strategic relationship between the US and Israel.”
The task of marketing Israel as “the only democracy in the Middle East” is no longer an easy sell.
With the ‘democracy’ pillar crumbling, the ‘stability’ pillar is falling apart, as well. And without stability, investors simply run away.
The rush to escape the Israeli market has already begun. The flight of capital, by Israel’s own estimation, is so extreme, it took many market analysts by surprise.
The first three months of foreign investments in Israel was a meager $2.6 billion, a drop of 60% compared to the years 2020 and 2022, according to a recent report issued by Israel’s finance ministry, which excluded 2021.
Certainly, what is taking place in ‘democratic’ and ‘stable’ Israel is truly unprecedented.
Israel’s current vulnerability is accentuated by the massive and rapid changes to the political map of the Middle East and the world. As the US-Western stronghold on the region and other parts of the world weakens, Israel’s once powerful geopolitical position is growingly compromised.
This should present Palestinians with the opportunity of exposing Israel’s losing brands – that of false democracy, social instability and outright apartheid.
Israel must now be pressured to acquiesce to international law which guarantees, in principle, justice and freedom for the Palestinian people, and inalienable ‘Right of Return’ for their refugees.
Without Palestinian freedom, Israel’s future is sealed as that of an unstable country with undemocratic institutions, permanent apartheid and, indeed, perpetual chaos.
Advisor to the Cuban President, Horhi Nuñez, confirms in an exclusive interview with Al Mayadeen that there is no longer any development today except through the revival of scientific and technological knowledge and innovation.
Advisor to the Cuban President, Horhi Nuñez, confirmed on Thursday that the G77-China summit offers an opportunity to strengthen relations with other southern countries and enhance cooperation.
In an interview with Al Mayadeen, Nuñez stated that Cuba’s development plan extends until 2030. He added that hosting the summit in Havana with such a significant number of delegations “indicates that Cuba is not alone.”
Nuñez emphasized that development relies heavily on reviving scientific and technological knowledge and innovation. He noted that the National Innovation Council, a recent initiative, aims to promote innovation.
Furthermore, he pointed out that research, pedagogical, and educational capabilities have been established in countries of the Global South. The Innovation Council, under the direct presidency of the Cuban President, stands out for its diverse membership, including representatives from the public, private, and university sectors. He also stressed that the current global technological system is “unjust and centered on a handful of countries, with capabilities concentrated in a specific group of countries in the North.”
Regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, Nunez highlighted that it has exposed the fragility of health systems globally, and a significant portion of the world’s population remains unvaccinated.
Nunez believed that southern countries should prioritize these issues and focus on developing their scientific capabilities and production systems. He emphasized that sovereignty and independence are not merely symbolic, and scientific capabilities are essential to overcoming many challenges.
Furthermore, the advisor to the Cuban President expressed concerns about the monopolization of artificial intelligence by a small group of international companies, which could threaten his country’s sovereignty.
He pointed out various obstacles to overcome in the Global South, including political, economic, health, and other barriers. He stressed the need for significant efforts to make progress in these areas.
Nuñez also noted that the struggle for peace requires diverting resources allocated to war into peaceful activities. He underscored that matters regarding science, technology, and innovation have an inherent political dimension and urged the summit to adopt positions on subjects like Palestine and sanctions against Cuba.
Earlier yesterday, during the opening of the Group of 77-China summit in Havana, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel called for an increase in global economic growth and social justice, as well as investments in factors necessary for achieving a new world order.
In this context, the draft final statement highlighted the challenges faced by Global South countries due to the unfair international economic system. It stressed the urgent need for comprehensive reform of the multilateral financial system and adopting a more comprehensive and coordinated approach.
Founded back in 1964, as the fruit of the first UNCTAD conference, the G77 (the Group of 77) quickly became a focal point for the world’s economic landscape.
The G77 came at the heels of the devastating aftermath of the Second World War. The Group served as a platform uniting developing nations where they could:
– voice their concerns – advocate their interests – coordinate their stances – negotiate with developed nations
What made the G77 unique was its ability to unite developing nations, forging a solid platform for them to coordinate their views on global economic matters.
This unity proved instrumental in the group’s ability to yield change. Muchkund Dubey, former Indian Foreign Minister and a witness to the group’s formation, described the G77’s mission as a “historic endeavor to change the rules of the game.” The group not only established new principles and standards governing the global economic system but also confronted the staunch resistance of developed nations head-on.
Initially, the group included 75 states, but by the end of the first UNCTAD conference, Australia and New Zealand withdrew from the group and 4 developing nations were added to consolidate the organization as a 77-state group.
Despite its members’ diverse cultures, geographies, and economies, the G77+China has consistently maintained multilateralism as a guiding principle for its South-South cooperation strategies. The G77+China has been a key player in addressing global development challenges. On September 15-16, 2023, the G77 and China convene a summit in Havana, Cuba where they will address pressing development issues.
The G77 effectively serves as the plenary body uniting the nations of the Global South to realize the common interests of states in the G77 coalition.
Friday will see the G77+ China summit convening in Havana. Themed “Addressing Contemporary Development Challenges: Harnessing the Power of Science, Technology, and Innovation”; this summit will see the revitalization of the Cold War organization and bring it back to the forefront of international affairs.
History
The G77 effectively serves as the plenary body uniting the nations of the Global South. The group was founded back in 1964 as a coalition of states within the United Nations, with the goal of promoting the interests of developing countries.
Founded in the aftermath of the Second World War and amidst the burgeoning of the Cold War, the historical context of the G77’s foundation gave the group a special character. The group was defined in contrast to the geopolitical turmoil of that era to be precisely geared toward economic concerns.
Ahead of the summit in #Havana on Friday, here’s the history behind the formation of #G77 and the significance this bloc carries in global politics. pic.twitter.com/gXJYYcFnOP— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) September 12, 2023
What made the G77 unique was its ability to unite developing nations, forging a solid platform for them to voice their concerns, advocate their interests, coordinate their views, and accordingly negotiate with the governments and organizations of the Global North.
The Ukraine conflict and the Black Sea grain deal have highlighted the ‘geopolitics of wheat’ and helped Russia gain leverage over Europe while expanding its influence in Africa and the Global South.
In the complex fabric of international relations, the interaction between geopolitics and trade – particularly of vital commodities – often occupies a key position. Nowhere is this more evident today than in the grain trade agreement between Russia and Ukraine, known as the Black Sea Grain Initiative.
Nestled within the fertile plains of Eastern Europe, Russia, and Ukraine stand as formidable players in the global cereal production arena, particularly in the domain of wheat cultivation. Their collaborative efforts significantly contribute to stabilizing global food prices and securing the food supply for numerous countries.
But the historical, political, and regional intricacies inherent to these two states have often cast shadows over their global economic interdependence, a situation further exacerbated by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Major players in the global grain market
On 22 July, 2022, a landmark agreement was brokered with the mediation of Turkiye and the UN, in which Russia and Ukraine would facilitate grain exports from both countries to global markets.
Central to this agreement was the establishment of a secure maritime route in the Black Sea – traversing the Bosphorus Strait in northwestern Turkiye – that would ensure the safe transit of grain shipments to and from Ukrainian ports.
Moreover, the accord envisioned the creation of a joint coordination center comprised of representatives from the three states who would be tasked with monitoring and inspecting ships to prevent the transportation of weapons.
Map of Black Sea Grain Initiative Shipping Route
The global significance of this agreement cannot be overstated, given the pivotal roles that Russia and Ukraine occupy as the world’s foremost cereal exporters. According to the World Food Program, Ukrainian cereals sustained the diets of approximately 400 million people globally in 2021.
Yet due to the ongoing proxy conflict in Ukraine, the number of individuals experiencing acute hunger is projected to surge by 47 million, representing a 17 percent increase, with the majority of those affected residing in sub-Saharan Africa.
Russia and Ukraine collectively account for a substantial share of the global grain market, with Russia being the leading wheat exporter (20 percent of global exports) and Ukraine following closely behind as the fifth-largest (10 percent of global exports).
Additionally, the two neighbors jointly contribute 25 percent of the world’s barley exports and 15 percent of maize exports. In 2021, Russia recorded wheat exports valued at $8.92 billion, with major destinations including Egypt ($2.44 billion), Turkiye ($1.79 billion), Nigeria ($493 million), Azerbaijan ($339 million), and Saudi Arabia ($316 million).
During the same year, Ukraine’s wheat exports totaled $5.87 billion, with key destinations being Egypt ($851 million), Indonesia ($640 million), Pakistan ($594 million), Nigeria ($490 million) and Ethiopia ($440 million).
However, the outbreak of war has severely impacted Ukrainian wheat exports, causing them to plummet from 21 million tons in the 2019-20 season to 16.8 million tons in 2022-2023, with a further decline to 10.5 million tons anticipated in the next year.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) predicts that Ukraine’s wheat production will dwindle to 17.5 million tons, marking the lowest level since 2012-2013.
Despite western efforts to stifle Russia’s economy, Moscow has emerged as the primary beneficiary of this decline, effectively filling the void left by reduced Ukrainian exports. Russian wheat exports soared to a record-breaking 45.0 million tons in the 2022/2023 season, reflecting a remarkable 36 percent increase from the previous year and surpassing the previous record set in the 2017-2018 season by 3.5 million tons.
Thanks to competitive prices and abundant supplies, the USDA anticipates that Russia will account for over 20 percent of the global wheat trade in the 2022-2023 season, with Russian wheat stocks projected to reach their highest levels in nearly three decades.
Data from the Russian state statistics service Rosstat reveals that grain stocks until May 2023 were 61.5 percent higher than the previous year, while wheat stocks increased by 69.4 percent. Russian wheat exports are poised to set a new record at 47.5 million tons in the 2023-2024 season, surpassing exports from the EU (38.5 million tons), Canada (26.5 million tons), Australia (25 million tons), and Argentina (11 million tons).
Disparities within the Black Sea Grain Initiative
According to EU data, nearly 33 million tons of cereals and other foodstuffs were exported through the Black Sea Grain Initiative. UN data further reveals that these cereals and food were shipped to 45 countries spanning three continents, with 46 percent going to Asia, 40 percent to Western Europe, 12 percent to Africa, and 1 percent to Eastern Europe.
The primary exports include maize (51 percent), wheat (27 percent), sunflower flour (6 percent), sunflower oil (5 percent), barley (4 percent), rapeseed (3 percent), and others (4 percent).
But to Moscow’s consternation – and contrary to its expectations – UN figures indicate that 90 percent of maize and 60 percent of wheat exported through the initiative found their way to high- and upper-middle-income countries, while only 10 percent of maize and 40 percent of wheat went to low- and middle-income countries.
These figures very clearly underscore the deal’s importance to Europeans. While initially aimed at meeting the food needs of poorer nations, it has instead overwhelmingly served the interests of western countries. Low-income states benefited from only 9 percent of total wheat exports and zero maize exports through this agreement.
This explains the west’s keen efforts to re-engage with the agreement after Russia’s July withdrawal from the deal, in which Moscow made clear that the west’s failure to fulfill its Russian grain export commitments scuttled the agreement’s renewal.
More grain for the Global South
This situation is not unfamiliar to Europeans. The stark contrast between western rhetoric and actions has become increasingly evident, contributing significantly to the competition between the Global South and major powers.
While the EU vocally advocated for a grain agreement to “avert a worsening food crisis” in impoverished countries – but hoarded the grain for its own use – Russia exported 11.5 million tons of cereals to Africa in 2022 and nearly 10 million tons in the first half of 2023.
During the recent Russia-Africa summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia, the Central African Republic, and Eritrea would each receive between 25,000 and 50,000 tons of grain, with Moscow also covering the shipping costs.
Impact of Russia’s grain diplomacy
Russian grain diplomacy has become a valuable card for Moscow to influence opinion in the African continent, which it has been able to further capitalize on after the shocking self-interest Europeans displayed during the last grain deal.
Russia’s conditions for rejoining the grain agreement have sparked a complex diplomatic situation with significant implications. Moscow’s demands include the reconnection of its state agricultural bank to the international bank messaging system SWIFT, a more equitable distribution of grain to poorer countries, especially in Africa, and the rollback of sanctions affecting export processes and logistics.
The UN proposed a compromise that would connect a ‘subsidiary’ of Russia’s State Agricultural Bank to SWIFT, but Moscow insisted that the connection must be a direct one.
For Russia, the grain deal represents leverage over Europe, given the potential impact of rising food prices on European countries already grappling with a self-inflicted energy crisis. With Moscow’s withdrawal from the agreement, global grain prices surged, affecting wheat, rice, vegetable oil, and sunflower oil.
As a mediator in this ongoing conflict, Turkiye also has a vested interest in the deal’s restoration. Success in persuading Russia to return to the agreement would bolster Ankara’s diplomatic standing, particularly in its relations with the west.
Moreover, ‘food politics’ are not restricted to the Russia-west conflict: Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia have imposed bans on the transportation of Ukrainian cereal products through their territories to protect their own farmers from cheap Ukrainian imports. While the bans are set to expire this month, these countries intend to extend them, further underscoring the need to resume the grain agreement.
Europe’s options appear limited, as the deal not only contributes to food security but also significantly impacts the west’s image in the Global South. Russia is keenly aware of this and actively works to publicize the destinations of Ukrainian grain while positioning itself as a guarantor of food security in numerous African countries, including Egypt.
Russian grain diplomacy has thus become a strategic tool for Moscow to project itself as a benefactor to Global South countries and to promote multipolarity that seeks less dependence on the west. With revenues and resources both in Russian hands, this is not a scenario in which Europe and the US can emerge unscathed.
The BRICS revealed its geopolitical priorities when it added three Persian Gulf states to its once exclusive roster of members. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have been strategically included to put an end to the petrodollar.
The leitmotif of the BRICS Summit meeting in Johannesburg on 22-24 August has been, expectedly, the expansion of the group to include six more member states. While this itself is a stand-alone event, in reality, it dovetails nicely into the group’s core agenda of global multipolarity and the creation of a fairer international trade and finance architecture that is crucial to economic growth.
The Johannesburg II Declaration adopted at the end of the summit modestly mentions toward the very end of the document that the addition of six more members stemmed out of a “consensus on the guiding principles, standards, criteria and procedures of the BRICS expansion process.”
However, the list of six countries – Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE – also gives away some other important clues. For starters, this BRICS consensus is anchored in a profound Russian-Chinese understanding. Also, the BRICS is declaring itself to be a non-western grouping. There is no question that BRICS ascribes the highest importance to Africa and the Persian Gulf region, with Egypt and Ethiopia, the two ancient civilization-states, as the “lynchpin.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later disclosed that the “consensus” was reached through some “lively discussions” and some serious considerations:
“The weight, prominence and importance of the candidates and their international standing were the primary factors for us. It is our shared view that we must recruit like-minded countries into our ranks that believe in a multipolar world order and the need for more democracy and justice in international relations. We need those who champion a bigger role for the Global South in global governance. Six countries whose accession was announced today fully meet these criteria.”
The BRICS expansion process was thought to be very controversial, but the unity of the group held nicely. The mother of all surprises has been India’s shift to a proactive role, belying all western predictions. This creates a new ambiance for the India-China relationship, as President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi indeed broke the ice.
With so much focus on West Asia and Africa, Brazil may have seemed like an outlier, but Argentina’s inclusion calmed Brazil’s sense of unease; China sought Ethiopia’s inclusion; Russia wanted Egypt’s inclusion. India, too was gratified that it enjoys historically friendly and close relations with all six newcomers.
Credit for this may need to go to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, whose diplomatic skill and sheer perseverance put together the algorithm behind the BRICS expansion.
Lavrov has visited Pretoria no less than four times after Russia’s special military operations [SMO] began in February last year. To be sure, the Kremlin’s hearts and minds machine was steaming ahead: South Africa hosted a joint military exercise with Russia on the first anniversary of the SMO, and President Cyril Ramaphosa visited Moscow twice this year. Simply put, he held President Vladimir Putin’s hands as Russia asserted its “non-isolation.” The BRICS summit’s outcome bears testimony to it.
Unravelling of the petrodollar
But what truly stands out in the BRICS expansion is the preponderance of member states from the Persian Gulf region — Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran.
So, what has been the game plan in bringing on board three of the world’s most important energy superpowers? Putin has voiced more than once the Russian assessment that for a long time to come, the world economy, including the western economies, cannot do without hydrocarbons as a major source of energy to run efficient, cost-effective means of production.
Russia and Saudi Arabia alone account for a quarter of the world’s oil production. Russia and Iran hold the world’s first and second-largest gas reserves in the world.
If the Ukraine war has shown anything, it is that countries rich in commodities cannot be browbeaten. The issue here is about the willingness and space that these resource-rich states enjoyed to exercise their strategic autonomy. The Cold War era didn’t allow for any space. But the co-relation of forces has dramatically changed, especially as the post-Cold War “unipolar moment” has vanished.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE exemplify this best. Having been close US allies for decades, they are now diversifying their external relations, including with China and Russia, whom Washington regards as sworn enemies. Iran, too, under the burden of extreme US and EU sanctions, today boasts a strategic partnership with both Moscow and Beijing.
The salience here is that these three oil-producing countries are also open to trading oil in non-dollar currencies. What the US did to Russia last year by seizing its hundreds of billions of dollar reserves sent shock waves all across the so-called petrodollar states of the Persian Gulf and beyond.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed satisfaction a few weeks ago that the process of de-dollarization in the global economy “is going relentlessly. The use of national currencies has already become a reality now, a reality growing at a global scale. Not merely countries facing sanction restrictions but also the ones not facing them are resorting to this practice – they understand the benefits of this regime in the foreign economic [activity].”
In fact, in July, “non-sanctioned” India and the UAE signed an agreement to settle trade in rupees instead of dollars, boosting India’s efforts to cut transaction costs by eliminating dollar conversions. One needs only to know that India-UAE bilateral trade last year was a whopping $84.5 billion. The first transactions between the two countries under the new agreement, including in oil and gold, have already commenced.
All indications are that the possible creation of a single BRICS currency figured in the discussions in Johannesburg. Putin made a reference to it in his media statement, saying: “I believe that a single settlement currency definitely deserves our attention. This is a complex issue, but we have to move towards resolving it in one way or another.”
There is every likelihood that this complex discussion will advance through the next two BRICS summits in 2024 and 2025 under the presidency of Russia and Brazil, respectively, two member states that are supportive of the idea of a common currency.
In sum, with the induction of the three major oil-producing nations of the Persian Gulf, BRICS 2023 will mark the beginning of the petrodollar’s unraveling. This is a huge step toward a multipolar world. The new settlement mechanisms, common currency, et al, will steadily dethrone the dollar, liberating the world economy from the clutches of the US Federal Reserve.
Fortifying the Global South
The rationale behind the induction of the three West Asian oil states — along with Egypt and Ethiopia — can also be assessed in terms of the imperatives of regional connectivity with the African continent, which Russia and China regard as being on the cusp of a historic economic transformation. By 2050, manufacturing spending alone is projected to reach $1 trillion in Africa, offering tremendous opportunities for global businesses.
But effective intra-African integration will be critical to the continent’s economic transformation. Russia hopes to connect the Persian Gulf region to the International North–South Transport Corridor, a 7,200-km-long multi-mode network of ship, rail, and road route for moving freight, and extend it further beyond to the African market.
Moscow is discussing with Cairo the establishment of a special economic zone in the vicinity of the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia is expanding a sweeping railway network connecting the north and south. A string of new ports is being planned along the Saudi and Emirati coastline.
In the final analysis, the big question is whether what took place in Johannesburg is the expansion of BRICS as a “stand-alone” event. Certainly, the overnight appearance of six important states under its canopy – who will assume full BRICS membership from 1 January, 2024 – short-circuited all procedural, protracted procedures as is customary in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or the European Union.
The sense of urgency is palpable. No questions asked; no interrogation ensued; no compliance report expected from the new hand-picked member states. The countries, each a regional power with its own credentials, simply walked into a red carpet welcome.
To be sure, much confabulation and quiet discussions between Russia and China paved the way. Russians are superb in distinguishing tactics from strategy, and in this case, they happen to blend with the world order that Moscow has been espousing.
Taken together with the profound reform of trade and payments that is already in the works, what is happening is no less than the replacement of the international trading system that has been governed exclusively by the west for the past few centuries with the objective of transferring wealth from the rest of the world to their manicured “garden.” Unless the collective west shows the sagacity to adjust to new realities, weeds may soon start taking over its “garden” and turn it into a jungle. Europe’s economic recovery is going to be challenging.
Turbulent times ahead
In sum, the historical significance of the BRICS expansion needs to be weighed in the following terms: First, Iran and two erstwhile US regional allies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, get much-needed space to negotiate an equal relationship with Washington based on mutual respect and benefit. Make no mistake, they are in a mood to capitalize on it.
Second, the western dominance of West Asia is ending, in a historical sense, heralding a profound shift in the regional order. The process that China kickstarted – with quiet Russian support from behind the curtain – in mediating the Saudi-Iranian reconciliation will now advance toward its logical conclusion sooner rather than later.
This means that the west’s colonial mindset of “divide and rule” will have no takers anymore among regional states. Thus, what happened in Johannesburg would be consequential for Israel and Turkey as well.
Finally, most importantly, the de-dollarization process, which would have moved at a snail’s pace, will now accelerate. What Putin had warned when the Biden administration imposed the “sanctions from hell” against Russia — especially its ouster from the SWIFT payment system —namely, that there would be a very heavy price to pay by the United States, is coming true. The blowback is only beginning in the international financial and trading system.
The west simply cannot win in the looming confrontation with the Global Majority. And the transition can be addressed by Washington only through reconciliation with Moscow and Beijing, not an easy poison for the Americans to swallow.
That will have to begin with an end to the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and a retreat or abandonment of the attempt to fuel tensions with China over Taiwan. On the other hand, any change of course in the US strategy away from its belligerent militarized policies will have long-term implications for the entire US-led western alliance system, while in the short term, impacting President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign, too. The humiliating defeat in the Ukraine war cannot be covered up any longer.
The times ahead will be turbulent as the old, self-centered, hegemonic western mindset won’t surrender easily. As for the entrenched interest groups in the US and Europe, their basic instinct will be to manufacture delaying tactics to stall the march of history. But it won’t work if BRICS stays the course.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
‘No mountains can stop the surging flow of a mighty river.’ With the addition of six new members that add geostrategic clout and geographic depth to the once sputtering BRICS, the multilateral institution is now gathering the momentum needed to reset international relations.
In the end, History was made. Surpassing even the greatest of expectations, the BRICS nations performed a giant step for multipolarity by expanding the group to BRICS 11.
Starting on January 1, 2024, the five original BRICS members will be joined by Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
No, they won’t turn into an unpronounceable BRIICSSEEUA. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed the song remains the same, with the familiar BRICS acronym to the Global South or Global Majority or “Global Globe” multilateral organization that will shape the contours of a new system of international relations.
Here is the Johannesburg II Declaration of the 15th BRICS summit. BRICS 11 is just the start. There’s a long line eager to join; without referring to the dozens of nations (and counting) that have already “expressed their interest”, according to the South Africans, the official list, so far, includes Algeria, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Venezuela, Vietnam, Guinea, Greece, Honduras, Indonesia, Cuba, Kuwait, Morocco, Mexico, Nigeria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkiye and Syria.
By next year, most of them will either become BRICS 11 partners or part of the second and third wave of fully-fledged members. The South Africans have stressed that BRICS “will not be limited to just one expansion phase.”
Russia-China leadership, in effect
The road leading to BRICS 11, during the two days of discussions in Johannesburg, was hard and bumpy, as admitted by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. The final result turned out to be a prodigy of trans-continental inclusion. West Asia was aggregated in full force. The Arab world has three full members, as much as Africa. And Brazil strategically lobbied to incorporate troubled Argentina.
The global GDP-purchasing power parity (PPP) of BRICS 11, as it stands, is now 36 percent (already larger than the G7), and the institution now encompasses 47 percent of the world’s population.
BRICS+ Countries GDP, GDP (PPP) and Debt. (Photo Credit: The Cradle)G7 Countries GDP, GDP (PPP) and Debt. (Photo Credit: The Cradle)
Even more than a geopolitical and geoeconomic breakthrough, BRICS 11 really breaks the bank on the energy front. By signing up Tehran, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, BRICS 11 instantly becomes an oil and gas powerhouse, controlling 39 percent of global oil exports, 45.9 percent of proven reserves and 47.6 percent of all oil produced globally, according to InfoTEK.
A direct BRICS 11-OPEC+ symbiosis is inevitable (under Russia-Saudi Arabia leadership), not to mention OPEC itself.
Translation: The collective west may soon lose its power to control global oil prices, and subsequently, the means to enforce its unilateral sanctions.
A Saudi Arabia directly aligned with Russia-China-India-Iran offers a stunning counterpoint to the US-engineered oil crisis in the early 1970s, when Riyadh started wallowing in petrodollars. That represents the next stage of the Russian-initiated and Chinese-finalized rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran, recently sealed in Beijing.
BRICS+ And G7 Proven Oil Reserves. (Photo Credit: The Cradle)
And that’s exactly what the Russia-China strategic leadership always had in mind. This particular diplomatic masterstroke is rife with meaningful details: BRICS 11 enters the fray on the exact same day, January 1, 2024, when Russia assumes the annual presidency of BRICS.
Putin announced that the BRICS 11 summit next year will take place in Kazan, the capital city of Russia’s Tatarstan, which will be yet another blow to the west’s irrational, isolation-and-sanctions policies. Next January, expect further integration of the Global South/Global Majority/Global Globe, including even more radical decisions, conducted by the sanctioned-to-oblivion Russian economy – now, incidentally, the 5th largest in the world by a PPP of over $5 trillion.
G7 in a coma
The G7, for all practical purposes, has now entered an Intensive Care Unit. The G20 may be next. The new “Global Globe” G20 may be the BRICS 11 – and later on the BRICS 20 or even BRICS 40. By then, the petrodollar will also be on life support in the ICU.
The BRICS 11 climax could not have been accomplished without a stellar performance by the Men of the Match: Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, supported by their respective teams. The Russia-China strategic partnership dominated in Johannesburg and set the major guidelines. We need to be bold and expand; we need to press for reform of the current institutional framework – from the UN Security Council to the IMF and the WTO; and we need to get rid of those institutions that are subjugated by the artificial “rules-based international order.”
No wonder Xi defined the moment, on the record, as “historic.” Putin went so far as to publicly call on all BRICS 11 to abandon the US dollar and expand trade settlements in national currencies – stressing that BRICS “oppose hegemonies of any kind” and “the exceptional status that some countries aspire to,” not to mention “a policy of continued neo-colonialism.”
Importantly, as much as the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is celebrating its 10th anniversary next month, Putin drove home the necessity to:
“…establish a permanent BRICS transport commission, which would deal not only with the North-South project [referring to the INTSC transportation corridor, whose key BRICS members are Russia, Iran and India], but also on a broader scale with the development of logistics and transport corridors, interregional and global.”
Pay attention. That’s Russia-China in synch on connectivity corridors, and they are preparing to further link their continental transportation projects.
On the financial front, the Central Banks of the current BRICS have been instructed to seriously investigate and increase trading in local currencies.
Putin made a point of being very realistic on de-dollarization: “The issue of the single settlement currency is a complex issue, but we will move toward solving these problems one way or another.” That complemented Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva’s remarks on how the BRICS has started a working group to study the viability of a reference currency.
In parallel, the BRICS’ New Development Bank (NDB) has welcomed three new members: Bangladesh, Egypt, and UAE. Yet their road to prominence from now will be even steeper.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa publicly praised NDB President Dilma Rousseff’s report on the nine-year-old institution; but Dilma herself stressed again that the bank aims to reach only 30 percent of total loans in currencies bypassing the US dollar.
That’s hardly enough. Why? It’s up to Sergey Glazyev, the Minister of Macroeconomics at the Eurasia Economic Commission, working under the Russia-led EAEU, to answer the key question:
“It is necessary to change the statutory documents of this bank. When it was created, I tried to explain to our financial authorities that the capital of the bank should be spread between the national currencies of founding countries. But American agents madly believed in the US dollar. As a result, this bank today is afraid of sanctions and is semi-paralyzed.”
No mountains can stop a mighty river
So yes, the challenges ahead are immense. But the drive to succeed is contagious, perhaps best epitomized by Xi’s remarkable speech at the closing ceremony of the BRICS Business Forum, read out by Chinese Minister of Commerce Wang Wentao.
It’s as if Xi had invoked a Mandarin version of the 1967 American pop classic “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough.” He quoted a Chinese proverb: “No mountains can stop the surging flow of a mighty river.” And he reminded his audience that the fight was both noble – and necessary:
“Whatever resistance there may be, BRICS, a positive and stable force for good, will continue to grow. We will forge stronger BRICS strategic partnership, expand the ‘BRICS Plus’ model, actively advance membership expansion, deepen solidarity and cooperation with other EMDCs [emerging market developing countries], promote global multipolarity and greater democracy in international relations, and help make the international order more just and equitable.”
Now add this profession of faith in humanity to the way the “Global Globe” perceives Russia. Even though the Russian economy’s purchasing power parity is by now ahead of the imperial European vassals that seek to crush it, theGlobal South’s perception of Moscow is as “one of our own.” What happened in South Africa made this even more clear, and Russia’s ascendency to the BRICS presidency in four months will crystallize it.
It’s no wonder that the collective west, dazed and confused, now trembles as it feels the earth – 85 percent of it, at least – moving under its feet.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, Bolivia’s President Luis Arce, and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva assemble for a group photo during the South American Summit at Itamaraty palace in Brasilia, Brazil, May 30, 2023. (
Maduro adds his country’s intent to establish a new financial architecture allowing transactions to occur via both physical and digital methods in multiple national currencies.
During his speech at the BRICS summit in the South African capital of Johannesburg, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro reiterated his country’s interest in the BRICS membership, after applying for it earlier this month, and voiced his intent to contribute to Venezuela’s oil-rich economy while reaping benefits from its common goal with the bloc’s ambition to end the dependence on the dollar.
“Venezuela joins the requests of countries wishing to join BRICS as we have recently confirmed,” Maduro said, adding that Venezuela is home to the largest oil resources in the world and could contribute greatly to the “global integration model”.
He further urged for establishing a new financial model that does not rely on the US dollar.
“The reality of recent years has demonstrated the necessity to move forward with the de-dollarization of the global economy amid the US currency being used as a mechanism of economic war against the free nations of the world. Recent studies have shown that at least 30 countries, accounting for 28% of the global population, are affected by imperialistic sanctions and other measures of economic war”.
Road to El-‘De-dollarization’
Maduro added his country’s intent to establish a new financial architecture allowing transactions to occur via both physical and digital methods in multiple national currencies.
Speaking of the economy, Maduro underlined that this would amplify the restoration and growth of the Venezuelan economy – already forecast to grow by over 5%, the highest figure in the region.
This comes the same day after Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel expressed that the bloc’s New Development Bank (NDB) should serve as the alternative to modern financial institutions that aim “to obtain resources from the countries of the South.”
“The New Development Bank created by BRICS can and should become an alternative to modern financial institutions that have been using outdated recipes for about a century to obtain resources from the countries of the South,” he said.
BRICS is attracting countries that aim to steer away from a system controlled by the collective West and adopt a model of international relations based on mutual partnership, South Africa’s minister of public works and infrastructure told Sputnik on Wednesday.
“[The] majority of the countries in the world are yearning for a platform where they could cooperate at a mutual level without being dominated by the so-called superpowers. And that’s why many people are eager to join BRICS,” Minister Sihle Zikalala said.
South of the border, an entire region is rising. Latin America is electing radical governments, dismantling cold-war era power structures and moving towards integration and genuine independence.
Today, “MintPress News” speaks to Ollie Vargas about Latin America and just what is going on in the region President Joe Biden called the U.S.’ “front yard.” Ollie Vargas is an award-winning journalist based in Bolivia. He is the co-founder of “Kawsachun News,” an outlet reporting in the English language on Bolivia and Latin America. He has also contributed to “MintPress.”
Key to the latest drive towards Latin America has been the role of Brazil and, in particular, President Lula da Silva, who has taken it upon himself to lead the Global South to take a more active role in world politics.
“The election of Lula da Silva in Brazil last year is key for Latin American unity and a multipolar world. There has always been the aspiration there. But without the leadership of Brazil, which is, of course, the largest country in Latin America, it is very difficult to make it a reality,” Vargas said.
Brazil is currently the only Latin American member of the BRICS economic bloc. However, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, Nicaragua and a host of other countries in the region have expressed interest in joining, which could turn the tables and provide balance to the U.S. “rules-based international order.”
Another key figure providing pushback to American dominance of Latin America is Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador. AMLO, as he is known, has refused to kowtow to Washington. Indeed, at President Biden’s Summit for Democracy in March, he described the U.S. as nothing more than an “oligarch with a façade of democracy.”
AMLO has proven very popular in Mexico, thanks to his pro-people policies. These include massively raising the minimum wage and state pensions, allowing tens of millions to live in dignity. All the while, he has kept inflation low. He holds a televised press conference every morning, in which he talks directly with the people. As Vargas put it, “While previous leaders stood above the population, AMLO stands with the people.”
AMLO stands, in Vargas’ opinion, in contrast to Chilean president Gabriel Boric. Heralded as a new kind of progressive at the time of his election, Boric has failed to maintain his popularity. Vargas explained that, while Boric has some superficially radical positions, he has changed little about the day-to-day existence of the ordinary people:
Boric is someone who came out of the middle-class student movements in Chile. He’s not someone who comes from the socialist left, from trade unions, or from indigenous movements. I would define his ideology as a liberal centrist. He has taken positions that would probably be considered more progressive than much of the Latin American left on LGBT issues, feminism and things like that. But when it comes to the economic issues, he represents an absolute continuity with the old conservative free-market government of Chile.”
Vargas also talks about the impact of the Russia-Ukraine war on Latin America, about the upcoming elections in Ecuador, and what it was like reporting under the dictatorship of Jeanine Añez in Bolivia in 2020.
If you are at all interested in Latin America, the Global South, or the changing world order, don’t miss out on this episode.
MintPress has launched its annual funding drive. Faced with algorithmic censorship, arrests, financial sanctions and more, it is crucial that our readers and viewers support us. If you are in a financial position to do so, please consider supporting our work. We can only do it with you and can’t do it without you.
MintPress News is a fiercely independent media company. You can support us bybecoming a member on Patreon, bookmarking and whitelisting us, and subscribing to our social media channels, includingTwitch,YouTube,Twitter andInstagram.
Riyadh is redefining its role as a trusted mediator and diplomatic force in the international arena, using its strategic relationships with both east and west to achieve those ambitions.
Last weekend’s gathering in Jeddah of over forty nations marked a significant milestone in Saudi Arabia’s political landscape. The event, ostensibly to advance Ukraine ‘peace talks,’ provided a platform for the kingdom to unveil its diplomatic vision on the global stage and redefine its role in shaping the multipolar world.
For Riyadh, hosting this summit over the contentious issue of the war in Ukraine held profound symbolism. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, has long faced international isolation following the state-sanctioned assassination of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.
However, this chapter has now closed: With open arms, the collective west has embarked on a journey of re-establishing political and economic ties with Riyadh.
A New York Times report last week highlighted how the Ukraine discussions in Jeddah have not only placed Saudi Arabia at the big table on a critical global issue, but have also offered MbS “another chance to try to position himself as a world leader with influence far beyond his region and as a mediator who can bring powerful nations to the table, even as he struggles to end his own country’s involvement in a devastating war in Yemen.”
Saudi diplomatic triumphs
This is not the first instance of Saudi Arabia assuming a key role in resolving regional disputes. While the international conference in Jeddah may be the latest in a series of diplomatic feats, Riyadh, in conjunction with Turkiye, had previously undertaken the task of facilitating the exchange of prisoners between Russia and Ukraine. In a display of remarkable diplomacy, Saudi officials played a pivotal role in securing the release of ten prisoners of war held by Russia, marking a significant step towards de-escalation.
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, a guest at the summit in Jeddah, passionately implored West Asia’s leaders to stand united against Russia. In a show of solidarity, Saudi Arabia pledged substantial financial assistance to support Kiev’s cause. This echoes the Kingdom’s history of stepping up as a mediator in various regional crises, be it the Lebanese civil war, the Israeli-Arab conflict, or the more recent turmoil in Sudan.
One standout achievement was the 1989 meeting in Taif, organized by Saudi Arabia, which catalyzed an end to the 15-year Lebanese conflict. In 2002, the Kingdom introduced the Arab Peace Initiative, offering Israel a pathway to normalization with Arab states in exchange for a viable Palestinian state, coupled with Israel’s withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967.
Saudi Arabia’s role in normalizing relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea in 2018 is yet another notch in its diplomatic achievements, fostering harmony between states that had been at odds.
MbS’s vision in redefining diplomacy
The concept of the “inevitability of the renaissance of the Global South” seems to have attracted the attention of MbS. This visionary and fervent young leader, driven by a steadfast belief in the potential for transformative change, has embarked on a path distinct from his predecessors within the House of Saud.
He has taken a bold stance on direct involvement in regional issues, from Yemen to Libya, Lebanon, and Egypt. In turn, he has moved towards a new diplomatic strategy akin to a revolutionary paradigm shift in dealing with foreign affairs.
MbS comprehends the drawbacks of regional conflicts, exemplified by the Yemen war, and the limitations of traditional diplomatic maneuvers when dealing with key regional players such as Iran. This has prompted his dramatic shift away from confrontational tactics or military interventions, and toward a diplomatic strategy characterized by tact and finesse.
A pivotal moment in this trajectory was the Al-Ula summit of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders in January 2021, which marked the resumption of fully normalized relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar—a testament to the power of soft diplomacy.
As the global stage undergoes profound transformation, with the ascent of China and India, Russia’s resolute stance vis-à-vis NATO’s European expansion, the faltering of US influence in the region, and the ascendancy of regional powers such as Turkiye and Iran, the contours of world politics are still evolving.
Saudi Arabia is part of multipolarity
Saudi Arabia has embraced the concept of “emerging multipolarity,” a perspective that envisions a new world order free from western hegemony. This paradigm shift was noticeable when Saudi Arabia hosted the historic China-Arab summit in December 2022, attended by Chinese President Xi Jinping.
More recently, in June during the Arab-China Business Conference in Riyadh, Saudi Investment Minister Khalid al-Falih told CNBC TV:
“We like to believe, and I think it’s been proven, that the kingdom is a significant part of this multipolar world that has emerged. And we’re going to play our part, not only in developing our own economy, but also developing our region, and spreading what we have in terms of development opportunities, also to Africa, Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent.”
Undoubtedly, a pivotal facet of the Jeddah summit on Ukraine lies in the participation of states that have maintained a neutral stance, treating the conflict as a showdown between Russia and the west.
While the Ukrainian narrative resonates in western spaces, Moscow’s perspective on the conflict’s origins and dimensions has managed to permeate the Global South.
The Saudi-led initiative has masterfully rallied other countries – those that have hesitated to align with western endeavors – to bolster support for Ukraine. Notably, China and India, conspicuous by their absence from a previous Ukraine summit in Copenhagen, have now made their presence felt in Jeddah.
Their decision to participate is anchored not only in their desire to nurture positive relations with Saudi Arabia but also in their pragmatic approach to engagement. By “attending and discussing,” these states perceive minimal risk, abstaining from any commitment to President Zelensky’s plan that could antagonize Russia and its President Vladimir Putin.
Saudi synergy with Russia and China
Recalling the instrumental role Beijing played in facilitating Iranian-Saudi reconciliation, it is apparent that there are multiple arenas in which Chinese and Saudi interests align. Foremost among these is their shared apprehension over the potential economic upheaval that unchecked hostilities could create on the fringes of one of their largest markets, Europe.
Riyadh’s strategic vision aligns with other BRICS nations such as India and Brazil, who recognize that their combined influence, as a collective of middle powers, can today leave an indelible mark on the global stage.
The Jeddah summit showcased Riyadh’s ability to mobilize international participation, particularly within the influential G20 framework. This marked shift in approach illustrates Saudi Arabia’s pivot from passively outsourcing its regional security concerns to proactively assuming direct management of its strategic interests.
In some respects, the war in Ukraine was a welcome gift to the Saudis, effectively compelling a visit from US President Joe Biden to mend bilateral ties. Throughout the course of the crisis, MbS deftly maneuvered around Washington’s entreaties to ramp up oil production, resolutely aligning with Russia to maintain oil prices at levels conducive to sustaining Riyadh’s budget and ambitious infrastructure undertakings.
With the dispatch of US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to Jeddah, the Biden administration unmistakably conveyed its desire to patch up its differences with the kingdom and act more deferentially toward the Saudis.
While previous peace discussions in Copenhagen yielded modest outcomes, Saudi Arabia is well-placed to sustain the diplomatic momentum necessary for engineering a peaceful resolution to the conflict, while adeptly sidestepping any perception of undue alignment with Russia.
Geopolitical pragmatism
MbS’s strategy is marked by a nuanced approach to US directives, signifying an inclination to stand by them selectively while simultaneously forging robust and strategic collaborations with rival powers. This growing sentiment in Saudi Arabia underscores a perceptible shift away from viewing the west as the sole determinant of global affairs.
In this vein, Saudi Arabia, under the de-facto leadership of MbS, endeavors to enhance ties with both eastern and western powers. The motivation behind this multifaceted diplomacy is rooted in the kingdom’s desire to position itself as an impartial intermediary capable of facilitating constructive dialogues between conflicting sides. Such a role stands to augment Riyadh’s stature on the global stage.
The Saudi leadership adeptly recognizes that the west is inclined towards a pronounced and overt bias in favor of Ukraine in the ongoing conflict. In response, the Saudis are promoting their potential to play the pivotal role of a trustworthy mediator, particularly with Russia.
Riyadh’s shared interests with Moscow – especially in the realm of oil production as OPEC+ members – have catalyzed the cultivation of bilateral relations over recent years. This pragmatic approach reflects the kingdom’s acknowledgment that over-reliance on Washington, particularly in security matters, might not be the wisest course of action.
While the Ukraine war and its many negative repercussions have taken a toll on the psyche of western – especially European – populations, the dialogue around its resolution has expanded to encompass a global perspective.
By offering itself as an impartial intermediary that can bridge east and west, Saudi Arabia is now positioning itself to impact conflict resolution outside of West Asia, prioritizing dialogue, stability, and cooperation – the driving themes of multipolarity.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Last week’s Russia-Africa summit highlighted their shared interest to cooperate against western dominance. While Moscow leads the fight, Africans are eager to play a role in shaping the new multipolar order.
Since the start of this year, Russia has shown a remarkable commitment to engaging with Africa, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov making three visits to the continent. These diplomatic efforts underscore the increasing importance Moscow places on cooperation with African countries.
This was expressed by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his recent article published on the Kremlin website on 24 July under the title “Russia and Africa: Joining efforts for peace, progress and a successful future” where he stated: “We highly value the honestly-gained capital of friendship and cooperation, traditions of trust, and mutual support that Russia and African countries share. We are brought together by a common desire to shape a system of relations based on the priority of international law, respect for national interests, indivisibility of security, and recognition of the central coordinating role of the United Nations.” The response from African countries has been unprecedented, particularly evident at the second Russia-Africa summit held on 27-28 July. An astounding 49 out of 54 African nations actively participated in the summit, indicating a significant development in the relations between the two parties.
Russian interests in Africa
This heightened engagement comes in spite of the war in Ukraine, which reshaped the geopolitical landscape and emphasized the importance of expanding cooperation with Africa amidst the global competition for positions and influence.
The Russian Foreign Policy Concept, issued in late March, recognized the importance of “strengthening and deepening Russian-African cooperation in various spheres on a bilateral and multilateral basis.”
What makes Moscow’s outreach particularly noteworthy is that it extends beyond countries with immediate strategic interests or abundant resources. Notably, Russia has reached out to smaller African states, such as Eswatini, highlighting its intent to strengthen its influence and build a positive image across the entire continent.
The African response to Russia’s calls for closer ties has grown substantially. The Second International Parliamentary Conference “Russia-Africa” saw an increased participation of 40 delegations from African countries in March 2023, compared to 36 delegations in the previous conference held in 2019.
Similarly, the second Russia-Africa summit witnessed the attendance of 49 African nations in July, compared to 43 countries in the inaugural summit in 2019.
These developments are especially significant as African countries face mounting pressure from western powers to cut ties with Moscow due to the conflict in Ukraine. According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, western states, particularly the US and France, were exerting “unprecedented pressure” on African countries ahead of the Russia-Africa summit in St Petersburg.
Aid and Trade
Trade exchange between Russia and Africa increased between 2020 and 2022, after the first Russia-Africa summit, increasing from $14 billion to $18 billion, and is expected to double in 2030. While Russia’s trade with continental Africa is still relatively modest, four countries stand out as crucial partners: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and South Africa, accounting for 70 percent of the total trade.
Africa’s top trade partners
Despite being at the bottom of Africa’s list of trading partners and contributing only 1 percent of foreign direct investment to the continent, Russia’s Africa policy is evolving rapidly. The Kremlin has recognized the increasing importance of Africa and sought new partnerships globally while deepening existing cooperation in the face of massive western sanctions.
One significant effort by Russia to strengthen ties with Africa is its commitment to education. In 2023, Russia offered a record 4,700 scholarships to African students, a considerable increase from the 1,900 scholarships awarded in 2019.
Furthermore, Russia has emerged as the top arms supplier to Africa, accounting for 44 percent of major arms imports to the region between 2017 and 2021. This dominance surpasses other major players like the US (17 percent), China (10 percent), and France (6.1 percent).
Russian presence in Africa
At the recent Russia-Africa summit, President Putin emphasized Russia’s commitment to military-technical cooperation by signing agreements with over 40 African countries and providing them with various weapons and equipment. Some of these deals even involved providing aid free of charge, demonstrating Russia’s commitment to supporting African nations in their fight against terrorism.
Breaking free from neocolonial exploitation
In today’s rapid geopolitical transformations, Africa has emerged as an arena for competing major powers. Amidst this struggle for influence, Russia and African countries have found common ground in their shared interest to cooperate against western dominance. Moscow positions itself as a leader of the anti-western resistance, while African states see an opportunity to break free from the shackles of western colonialism and assert their voices in shaping the new multipolar order.
To understand the dynamics of the current Russian-African relationship, historical context is essential. The legacy of western colonial policies remains a pivotal element in the cooperation between Moscow and African states.
Many African countries identify with Russia’s vision of a multipolar world, seeking a more equitable presence in global affairs. Russia deftly capitalizes on this anti-colonial sentiment, presenting itself as an attractive partner aligned with the interests of the Global South, particularly Africa.
Recent Russia-Africa summits have provided a platform for Moscow and its African partners to criticize the west openly. Leaders like Burkina Faso’s Brahim Traoré used strong anti-colonial rhetoric to emphasize the need to break free from neocolonial exploitation and resource extraction.
In addition to rhetoric, Russia backs its words with action. At the summit, President Putin canceled $23 billion of African debt and pledged increased Russian investment in the continent. Moscow also highlighted its commitment to African food security, contrasting western practices that prioritize developed countries over developing ones.
UN data shows that 45 percent of food exports from Ukraine, exported under the Black Sea Grain Initiative signed between Russia, Ukraine, the UN, and Turkiye, went to developed countries, compared to 49 percent to developing countries.
Only 6 percent of these exports went to the least developed countries, including African countries, the equivalent of approximately 1.4 million tons. Last year, Russia exported 11.5 million tons of cereal to Africa, and nearly another 10 million tons were delivered in the first half of 2023.
Seeking collaborative partnerships
The report from the Munich Security Conference in February highlighted a troubling trend for the west: “Many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have steadily lost faith in the legitimacy and fairness of an international system which has neither granted them an appropriate voice in global affairs, nor sufficiently addressed their core concerns. To many states, these failures are deeply tied to the west. They find that the western-led order has been characterized by post-colonial domination, double standards, and neglect for developing countries’ concerns.”
As a result, countries in the region are seeking new partners who will approach the relationship as a collaboration rather than a zero-sum game. They have found an appealing alternative in Russia’s engagement, particularly in President Putin’s rhetoric advocating for a fair representation of African countries in international forums like the UN Security Council and G20. Furthermore, Moscow’s commitment to reform global financial and trade institutions to better serve African interests has resonated with these nations, setting the stage for deeper cooperation.
The growing discontent with the western-led system and the allure of alternative partnerships have helped to forge closer ties between the Kremlin and many of Africa’s leaders. This may explain recent events in Niger and before that in Mali, where military coups have redirected the country’s foreign policy away from the west and, in particular former colonial ruler France.
Gaining ground in the Global South
The support of some African countries, such as Burkina Faso, Mali, and Guinea, for the coup in Niger, can be seen as a message of support for expelling the long-standing French influence and presence there.
In Russian geopolitical thought, Africa has become a region of increased importance and opportunity, necessitating stronger cooperation and multifaceted relations. Moscow’s approach to the African continent is built on three main pillars: enhancing influence through cooperation, emphasizing its leading position among anti-western countries, and investing in the region’s abundant resources.
Russia recognizes that the prevailing anti-western sentiment in Africa provides a unique opening to build alliances and advance the cause of liberation from colonial legacies. The ongoing conflict between Russia and the west extends beyond the confines of Ukraine and is now unfolding in various regions, including Africa.
President Putin has skillfully positioned himself as a leader of the resistance against western influence, effectively resonating with many countries in the Global South, including Africa. By aligning itself with Africa’s desire to break free from historical western dominance and colonial influences, Russia has gained significant ground.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
After NATO was formed and after deploying part of its nuclear arsenal in Europe, the US became the guarantor of the security of its NATO allies, and the “US nuclear umbrella” was born.
In 1945, Pax Americana emerged as the dominant global power, with Washington aiming to assert its authority on the world stage.
To showcase its strength and deter potential challengers, the United States made a bold statement by choosing Hiroshima, Japan, as a symbolic demonstration of its military might.
The devastating atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6 marked the beginning of an era where defying American would come with severe consequences. It was a defining moment that illustrated the immense power and resolve of the United States in shaping the post-war world order.
It was the day when the first and, thus far, the only nuclear bomb was deployed, causing unimaginable devastation and resulting in the loss of nearly 70,000 innocent Japanese lives.
On August 9, 1945, Nagasaki, Japan, became the second target of a devastating nuclear attack. The United States, seeking to assert its power and send a clear message to the world, unleashed another destructive force, resulting in widespread destruction and the loss of approximately 40,000 lives.
The massive mushroom cloud that enveloped Nagasaki served as a chilling symbol of the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons and the immense human suffering they cause.
On May 19, 2023, 78 years later, Japan hosted a meeting for the G7 leaders and chose Hiroshima as the summit location. US President Joe Biden arrived at the meeting destination, becoming the first American to land his feet on the radiated city.
During the G7 summit in Hiroshima, the Japanese Prime Minister aimed to initiate discussions on nuclear arms and encourage leaders to commit to a framework regarding the use of nuclear weapons. However, the final statement issued by the group primarily focused on condemning China’s nuclear weapons, which was no surprise to observers.
The Western world applauded the resolute declaration, perceiving it as a deterrence against Beijing’s nuclear “threat to humanity,” despite the fact that China has not been involved in any military conflicts beyond its own borders, while the countries endorsing the statement have themselves waged numerous wars in the past decades.
From left, President of the European Council Charles Michel, Italy’s Premier Giorgia Meloni, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, U.S. President Joe Biden, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visit the Itsukushima Shrine on Miyajima Island in Hatsukaichi, Hiroshima prefecture, western Japan, Friday, May 19, 2023 (Kenny Holston/Pool Photo via AP)
It indeed appears as a tragicomedy or a surreal theatrical production. The image of the American nuclear bomber alongside the Japanese victims, accompanied by former colonizers and the colonized, serves as a warning to the world about the perceived “global threats” posed by China and Russia’s military capabilities. The irony and contradictions within this scenario are hard to overlook.
The observation of this theatrical display paves the way to the realization that the statements made by the leaders hold some truth, despite the ironic and contradictory nature of the situation. While it may be unsettling, there are elements of reality within their assertions.
In the intricate web of global affairs, a world dominated by Washington and its proxy nations finds itself facing a profound threat.
The very foundations of this order, woven through institutions tainted by notions of genocide, such as the IMF and the World Bank, and bolstered by the military might of NATO and its war coalition, stand on shaky ground.
Emerging on the horizon are the pillars of multipolarity, heralding an alternative world order.
The collective uprising of the Global South and the rise of BRICS, the SCO, and the Eurasian Economic Forum (among others), as well as Beijing’s dissemination of a new economic and political paradigm, present a formidable challenge to the established norms.
The tides of change are shifting, and the winds of multipolarity are blowing, ushering in a new era where power is shared and a different vision of global governance takes shape.
Pax Americana: Sole owner of war and peace
Since the advent of the nuclear era in 1945, the nature of the conflict between the United States and its perceived adversaries has undergone significant transformations.
In the realm of Pax Americana, a grand tapestry of power, profits, and resources was woven through a blood-soaked ideology and unabashed hubris.
This hegemonic force, fueled by military might, gave birth to a multidimensional industry that reaped fortunes for the colossal corporations of the era. Within the fabric of this empire, social structures were shaped and molded, with the United States and its satellites standing as both beneficiaries and captives of this all-encompassing enterprise.
The prosperous post-World War II economy in the United States, fueled in part by the government’s sales of arms to the fighting parties, spurred the emergence of a new way of life in the country. This economic success became a driving force behind the nation’s quest for hegemonic expansion, aiming to secure vital resources and trade routes essential for any superpower seeking unipolar dominance.
Indeed, the belief during that time was that a wealthier society could attain military superiority over adversaries with lesser industrial wealth. This assumption, however, underwent a significant shift with the introduction of atomic weapons into the equation of warfare.
The destructive power and indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons rendered the traditional metrics of military superiority based on economic wealth and industrial capabilities less relevant. The presence of atomic weapons introduced a new level of danger and mutually assured destruction, altering the dynamics of military strategy and emphasizing the importance of nuclear deterrence.
Globalization within this context was promoted by the United States – just like the notion of democracy – for decades as the highest form of the growing interconnections of world nations.
Of course, globalization is indeed a natural outcome of the progress and scientific breakthroughs that took place, with regard to communications, transportation means, and the advancement of industrialization systems.
However, while the United States pushed for adopting the concept on a global scale under the pretext of connecting countries economically and culturally, it aimed to establish market and trade integration only as a means to further extend its hegemony and economic control. (Take as an example Washington’sn real intentions from inviting China to join the WTO for long years.)
Indeed, following World War II, there were policymakers in Washington who advocated for the growth of the US nuclear arsenal. Figures like Henry Kissinger and Walt Rostow believed that a robust nuclear arsenal would be essential in maintaining American dominance and furthering its expansion in a world still reeling from the war’s aftermath.
The proponents of this approach argued that possessing large and advanced nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent factor against potential adversaries and solidify American superiority. They believed that the possession of such weapons would not only ensure national security but also provide leverage in shaping global affairs according to US interests.
This perspective was rooted in the belief that nuclear weapons represented a significant shift in the balance of power, offering a unique form of military might that could secure dominance in international relations. As a result, the United States pursued the development and deployment of nuclear weapons as a key component of its defense strategy during this period.
A Polaris missile was fired from the nuclear submarine, USS George Washington, at Cape Canaveral, Fla. on July 20, 1960, in the first test firing of a missile from underwater (AP)
As such, the United States’ nuclear doctrine was born: it is not only about deterring potential rivals but also a means to establish and enforce total hegemony over global countries, economies, and markets. This transformation positioned the US as the sole decider of war and peace.
The nuclear race that ensued can be attributed mostly to the example set by the United States. As the first country to develop and use atomic weapons, the US demonstrated the immense destructive power and geopolitical leverage that these weapons could provide. Pax Americana here prompted other nations to acquire their own nuclear arsenals as a means of deterrence and self-defense.
The pursuit of nuclear weapons or hosting them from allied countries has then become a means for certain anti-hegemonic states to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity against perceived threats from US-led Western campaigns.
The history of military interventions and regime changes carried out by Western powers, often in pursuit of strategic interests or access to resources, has created a sense of vulnerability and the need for self-defense among these states.
The development and proliferation of nuclear weapons created a new paradigm in warfare, where the destructive power of these weapons exceeded the capacity of any state to withstand their impact. This realization led to a mutually assured destruction (MAD) scenario, in which engaging in a full-scale nuclear war would result in catastrophic consequences for all parties involved, including Americans themselves.
Nuclear ‘madman’
The post-World War II era witnessed the emergence of a new paradigm in which the manufacturing of public anxiety and the creation of existential enemies played a significant role in shaping nuclear power dynamics. This approach was fueled by the desire to justify and perpetuate a massive war machine, primarily controlled by a few powerful military-industrial complexes.
By crafting and amplifying fear, political leaders and those with vested interests in the military-industrial complex sought to maintain public support for substantial defense expenditures and the expansion of military capabilities. Portraying external threats as existential enemies helped in justifying the continued development and deployment of advanced weaponry, including nuclear weapons.
During the Cold War, the United States government engaged in extensive psychological operations (psyops) aimed at influencing public opinion and shaping perceptions, both domestically and internationally. These psyops were part of a broader strategy to counter the influence of the Soviet Union and its allies.
A famous example of such psyops was the Committee on Present Danger. The committee, formed in the 1950s and comprising prominent figures from the government, military, and academia, was tasked with spreading terror among the masses of communism and Soviet expansionism.
The propaganda group employed various strategies, including media campaigns and public speeches, to generate fear and rally support for US policies and military spending.
By creating a horrified public, in which the government appears as the sole protector, the state was in full control.
But add nuclear weapons to the equation, the matters become more serious.
Throughout history, there have been instances where American decision-makers and policy planners employed psychological tactics to enhance nuclear intimidation.
One notable example is the concept of “nuclear brinkmanship”, which involves deliberately escalating tensions and pushing the limits of nuclear confrontation to gain leverage in negotiations or intimidate opponents. This approach was famously employed during the Cold War, particularly by presidents John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
In October 1969, during the Vietnam War, Washington devised a secret plan, dubbed Operation Duck Hook, during which the US would appear to threaten Hanoi with an imminent nuclear attack.
The cover page to the Navy’s Duck Hook plan for mining Haiphong Harbor, developed in July 1969 at the request of President Nixon and national security adviser Kissinger (US National Security Archive, The George Washington University)
According to Harry Robbins “Bob” Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff in Nixon’s administration, the basis of the tactic was to make the US leader appear “psychologically unstable,” unpredictable, and with no limits to the measures he would take.
Haldeman revealed, quoting Nixon as telling him, “They’ll believe any threat of force that Nixon makes because it’s Nixon. I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war.”
And while this was not the first time, nor the last time, that a country resorted to the “madman” approach to deter its opponents, the line separating genuine threats from bluffs remained very thin.
In 1959, the Strategic Air Command (SAC) introduced a war plan titled Atomic Weapons Requirements Study. The document was later updated in 1961 following the Berlin Crisis.
However, one significant aspect was that one of the potential targets was China, although it would not test its first nuclear weapon until 1964 nor it was in direct conflict with the US. According to the plan, 49 to 78 Chinese cities would be hit with US atomic bombs, with prospected fatalities of around 67 million and 107 million.
But plans and proposals to launch a “preventive” or “preemptive” nuclear strike against the USSR were rapidly toned down when the Soviets developed a serious retaliatory capability, including the most powerful atomic bomb produced and tested: “Tsar Bomba”.
Russia’s nuclear parity with the US made Nixon believe that the nuclear umbrella was no longer sustainable.
The concept of “massive retaliation” adopted by the United States to justify its nuclear buildup became afterward an outdated strategy and was replaced by the concept of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD); a necessary doctrine to protect countries from America’s war machines.
The intensification of hostilities between Russia and the United States set the stage for a high-stakes, zero-sum game in any potential armed conflict, compelling the United States to reevaluate its approach and adopt a more cautious stance. This pivotal shift in strategy ultimately laid the foundation for the Cold War.
Two-way annihilation
Following the fall of the Soviet Union, its nuclear infrastructure was dissolved, while its nuclear warheads were removed from the country and deployed in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine.
One of the American nuclear scientists that participated in joint Soviet-US efforts to end Moscow’s nuclear power was Professor Siegfried Hecker, who then served as a director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
According to Hecker, when the USSR collapsed, the nature of the nuclear threat to the US changed: it was not one of mutual annihilation anymore.
The United States later made Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine sign the Lisbon Protocol to the START agreement, committing the newly independent states to transfer the former Soviet nuclear arsenals to Russia and to join the NPT as nonnuclear-weapons states.
Meanwhile, the US funded the denuclearization process in the three countries bordering Russia with billions of dollars and ended the nuclear programs, destroying over 6,800 nuclear warheads along the way.
But the American PR campaign to turn the world into a “safer place” was later exposed.
In the subsequent years, disregarding numerous warnings from influential global figures and Moscow, the US-led NATO persisted in its expansion toward the Russian borders, violating a previous agreement between the former Soviet Union and Washington that stipulated no further countries would join the military coalition.
Last March, just over a year following the start of the war in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow will be deploying some of its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.
Putin then explained that the measure will be similar to the United States’ deployment of some of its nuclear arsenal in Europe (and Asia), further noting that Russia’s action does not violate the nuclear nonproliferation agreements NPT.
The Russian leader thus revived the “mutually assured destruction” policy and placed it back on the table for the world to see.
His announcement triggered a fervent response in Western countries, issuing warnings about the potential escalation. Nonetheless, the strategic move has thus far achieved its intended objectives.
Since then, the inclusion of the possibility of a Russian tactical nuclear attack in the plans of European leaders and American officials when engaging with Moscow has become a prevalent factor.
Putin stressed that the deployment of atomic in Belarus is of a deterrent nature for those oblivious in the West who assume they can inflict on Russia a strategic defeat.
While NATO’s agenda remained centered around its eastern expansion, the changing circumstances led to a moderation of fervent rhetoric in the West after a year of advocating to “end Russia”.
From Europe’s perspective, the haunting memories of both world wars have made them acutely aware that the continent would inevitably become the epicenter of any conflict between Russia and the West. And even if it declared a neutral stance, Europe understands that it would likely become the battleground in any confrontation between Moscow and the United States.
Washington, in light of Russia’s advancements in nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles and long-range naval vessels capable of launching nuclear warheads, has become increasingly cautious when considering any direct escalation with Moscow. The realization that these technologies pose a significant challenge to interception systems has compelled Washington to exercise greater restraint in its approach toward Russia.
In this image taken from a video released by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on May 28, 2022, a new Zircon hypersonic cruise missile is launched by the frigate named “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov” of the Russian Navy from the Barents Sea (Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via AP)
“Nuclear weapons have been made to ensure our security in the broadest sense of the word and the existence of the Russian state, but we…have no such need [to use them],” Putin said.
“Just talking about this (the potential use of nuclear weapons) lowers the nuclear threshold. We have more than NATO countries and they want to reduce our numbers. Screw them,” he added said.
As did DPRK’s leader Kim Jong Un, the Russian President also was promising imperialist powers “mutual annihilation”.
The nuclear umbrella of illusion
The US, through its proxy war in Ukraine, sought to amplify the bloc mentality on a larger scale, utilizing its influence and resources to hinder a potential Eurasian uprising and redirect Europe’s foreign policy toward disengaging from China and Russia. This strategic maneuver aimed to consolidate American power and disrupt the growing connections between countries in Eurasia.
As part of Washington’s neo-bloc strategy, political integration is closely intertwined with hyper-militarization.
This approach not only entails the presence of direct, yet limited US forces but also compels allies to substantially increase their defense spending to unprecedented levels. The objective is to create a framework where political and military cooperation aligns, solidifying American influence and promoting a sense of collective security among allies.
Following the establishment of NATO and the deployment of a portion of its nuclear arsenal in Europe, the United States assumed the role of security guarantor for its transatlantic allies, giving rise to what is commonly referred to as the “US nuclear umbrella.”
The deployment of American nuclear weapons in Europe during the 1950s served multiple purposes, one of which was maintaining control over allied nations.
While the primary goal was to counter the perceived Soviet threat during the Cold War, the presence of nuclear arms also played a role in exerting influence and control over its transatlantic allies.
The concept of the US nuclear umbrella created a perception of safety and protection for its allies. By positioning itself as the guarantor of their security, Washington fostered a sense of dependence and reliance on its nuclear capabilities.
This allowed the United States to justify its own retention and modernization of nuclear weapons, citing the need to maintain a credible deterrent to protect its allies. In doing so, it effectively used the nuclear umbrella as a justification to evade or delay its disarmament commitments, arguing that the security of its allies depended on its nuclear arsenal.
This approach allowed Washington to maintain a significant nuclear presence and influence on the global stage, while also preserving its strategic interests and exerting control over the disarmament agenda.
The US-led NATO’s increasing control over Europe’s security, particularly in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict, has resulted in an unprecedented level of influence and dominance. Through years of fearmongering and portraying Moscow as a threat, NATO has successfully consolidated its grip on the region.
The concept of “extended deterrence” has played a crucial role in this process, as the deployment of US nuclear weapons in allied countries acts as a symbolic and tangible demonstration of American power and commitment to their defense.
By positioning itself as the ultimate authority, Washington effectively solidifies its influence to the extent that its directives are regarded as virtually constitutional. This further reinforces the hegemonic control of the United States and its ability to shape the security policies and decision-making of its allies.
This blind faith in the postulations of Deterrence Theory has established what anti-nuclear advocate and international security expert, Professor Nick Ritchie, called the “regime of nuclear truth” and denominated “nuclear absolutism”.
In January 2023, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol raised the possibility of developing independent nuclear weapons as a response to the DPRK’s growing power. However, this proposal was met with disapproval from the White House, which expressed its opposition and implied potential consequences if South Korea were to pursue such a policy.
Despite publicly acknowledging the nuclear threat posed by DPRK to South Korea, the United States maintained its opposition to Seoul’s proposal of developing its own nuclear weapons.
Paradoxically, in April, the United States agreed to deploy nuclear-armed submarines to South Korea for the first time in decades and involve Seoul in its nuclear planning operations. This contradictory stance by Washington raised questions about its true intentions and strategic objectives in the region.
Mainly, this means that South Korea is officially under US “extended deterrence” program, and therefore, the Americans are forced as per the agreement to come to its aid in the event of an attack.
The deal between Washington and Seoul was met with skepticism by the South Korean public, as reflected in polls.
There were concerns about whether the United States would truly uphold its commitments, given its history of uncertainties and wavering policies in international relations.
This skepticism highlighted the importance of trust and transparency in such agreements, as the South Korean public sought reassurances regarding the reliability and consistency of the United States as a strategic partner.
Here, an age-long question reemerged: “Would Washington risk San Francisco for Seoul in the event of nuclear war?” Of course, the question here is completed by another one: “What are the odds of completely losing what’s left of the country’s sovereignty and marginal decision-making ability by hosting US nuclear arms, and eventually being sold out by Washington?”
But the fear of fully entrusting in the United States is not a new phenomenon and has been a recurring theme for decades.
In the 1960s, French General Charles de Gaulle was highly skeptical of America’s nuclear security guarantees, particularly after the Soviet Union developed ICBMs that can reach the US mainland.
De Gaulle’s skepticism led him to ask then-US President John F. Kennedy if he would be willing to risk New York for Paris.
Eventually, the lack of confidence in American assurances was the reason behind establishing the “French nuclear deterrent force,” which allowed Paris to ensure its own safety and avoid overdependence on NATO.
History says no
A South Korean demonstrator holds a placard at a rally against South Korea and US policy on DPRK in front of the Foreign Ministry in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, April 26, 2011 (AP/Ahn Young-joon)
The 2022 US Nuclear Posture Review notes that “extended nuclear deterrence contributes to U.S. nonproliferation goals by giving Allies and partners confidence that they can resist strategic threats and remain secure without acquiring nuclear weapons of their own.”
The debate among US allies about the level of trust they can place in their American partners reached a new level of intensity with the assumption of former US President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy.
This was further amplified when Trump openly questioned Washington’s commitments to its NATO obligations and even suggested the possibility of withdrawing US troops from Europe. The fears and concerns of European nations were heightened as they witnessed a more self-preserving and protectionist stance taken by Washington, raising doubts about the extent to which the United States would defend the continent despite its grand promises.
A recent CSIS study explored four potential future scenarios in which the United States would have to navigate a world where adversaries possess substantial nuclear arsenals. The study’s findings revealed a consistent credibility challenge for the US in assuring its allies about their protection and the safeguarding of their interests.
Commenting on the Nuclear Posture Review of 2022, the Washington-based think tank said fundamental trust in the United States’ ability to secure collective defense [bloc alliances] “is far from guaranteed.”
“A cohesive and confident alliance network backed by credible extended deterrence [nuclear umbrella] guarantees U.S. strategic interests,” the study added, stressing “that the United States will need to continue to rely on nuclear weapons for extended deterrence purposes.”
One of the core suggestions of the study is that the United States, while adopting a bloc-alliance policy, should seriously consider further nuclear deployment in allied countries, especially those in close proximity to states considered by Washington as “strategic national security threats”: China and Russia.
But American “extended deterrence” that extends over a set of allied countries also generates concerns regarding the rationality behind trusting a bloc’s security under Washington’s nuclear umbrella.
If US adversaries feel an existential threat, will decision-makers in said countries consider states hosting American nuclear weapons a factor of deterrence or military targets? Will the nuclear bloc mentality subject its members to collective punishment, regardless of the actual interests of each country separately?
This perspective sheds light on an important observation: while the United States presents itself as a guardian of allies and a promoter of global stability, its actions often involve consolidating the military capabilities of its partners and prioritizing American interests above all else.
This approach reflects one of the many forms of unipolarity, where Washington’s influence and dominance shape international dynamics to a large extent.
Within this framework, nuclear umbrellas can be perceived as sources of insecurity rather than genuine protection and deterrence for their host countries.
Within this framework, nuclear umbrellas can be realized as the foundations of insecurity for their hosts rather than protection and deterrence, and their costs outweigh their benefits under a unipolar world order governed by the White House and America’s industrial complex.
Historically, military alliances based on shared assistance and mutual defense have proven to be only circumstantial empty promises.
So, in short, history says that no, the United States will not risk San Francisco for Seoul, nor New York for Paris, and the US nuclear umbrella remains an illusion designed by unipolarity and employed for imperialistic drives that will be extremely marginalized in the rising multipolar world, but this is a discussion for another article.
The Iranian president’s visit to Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba sought to challenge Washington’s global hegemony, by stripping it bare in its own backyard.
On 21 June, the US House Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Subcommittee conducted a hearing on “countering threats posed by nation-state actors” in Latin America to US homeland security. Congressman and subcommittee chair August Pfluger referred to “threats” posed by China, Russia, and Iran to US homeland security within Latin America, often referred to as “America’s backyard.”
During the recent docking of an Iranian navy flotilla in Brazil’s port city of Rio de Janeiro, Congressman Pfluger expressed concern over what he said was Iran’s intention “to assert its power in the region.” The flotilla’s voyage, which spanned the world despite facing sanctions, was seen as a remarkable demonstration of Iran’s military prowess.
Pfluger’s apprehension, though not explicitly stated, was triggered by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s highly publicized tour of Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba, marking the first visit by an Iranian president to the region in over seven years.
Iranian influence in Latin America
As Raisi was busy signing dozens of cooperation agreements with his Latin American counterparts, Maria Elvira Salazar, the chairperson of the US House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, toldFox News that the Iranian president’s trip to the region underscored the failure of the Biden administration’s policy on Latin America, which not too long ago used to be America’s fortress.
“We must repair our relationships with our friends in the region so that we can form a united front against the countries that invite the Islamic Republic’s terrorist regime into our hemisphere,” Salazar stressed.
White House spokesperson John Kirby tried to put a brave, nonchalant spin on things. Asked by reporters about Raisi’s trip to the three Latin American countries and “how the US might be countering whatever he is trying to achieve there,” he shrugged:
“We don’t ask countries in this hemisphere or any other to choose who they’re going to associate with or who they’re going to talk to or who they’re going to allow to visit,” Kirby said, dodging the question. “That’s for them to speak to. We’re focused on our own national security interest in the region.”
It was a poor attempt to save face over the effusive reception the Iranian president received south of the border – the US has, after all, been deeply engaged in countering Iranian influence in Latin America for many years. Sure enough, when prodded further on whether the US government was “concerned” over expanded cooperation between Iran and the three US-sanctioned Latin American countries, Kirby dropped his guard:
“I mean, look, I can’t speak to the agenda or what he’s doing or who he’s going to meet with. Are we concerned about Iran’s destabilizing behavior? You bet we are. And we – and we have and will continue to take steps to mitigate that behaviour.”
Reactions also came from pro-Israel lobby groups in the US, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which described Tehran’s influence in the region as “destructive.”
Raisi’s trip as a political message
Speaking to reporters in Tehran upon his return from the five-day trip, Raisi described Latin America as a “strategic region” with an abundance of natural resources and educated people who he said have bravely resisted “arrogant powers” and the “unjust world order” for years.
He also signed 35 cooperation agreements and memoranda of understanding between Iran and the three Latin American countries in the fields of energy, industry, mining, and others.
The Iranian president’s power-packed speeches and media interviews in all three countries revolved around the themes of “circumventing US sanctions,” “boosting cooperation between independent countries, “ending US hegemony,” and establishing “a new world order.”
“Relations between Iran and Venezuela are not normal diplomatic ties. They are strategic,” Raisi said in Caracas after meeting his Venezuelan counterpart Nicolas Maduro, adding that the two countries have “common enemies that do not wish us to live independently,” a clear reference to the US.
The two sides agreed to boost their annual trade from $3 billion to $20 billion, in two phases, in line with the 20-year cooperation pact signed during Maduro’s visit to Tehran in June last year.
Raisi’s maiden visit to Caracas came as exports of Venezuelan oil continue to surge amid the weakening of US sanctions, with Iran playing a key role in keeping the country’s refineries afloat.
In a symbolic but significant move, Maduro announced a plan to install a bust of Iran’s famed military general, Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated in a US drone strike outside Baghdad International Airport in January 2020, at the final resting place of Venezuela’s legendary independence leader Simon Bolivar.
‘Yankee go home’
On the second leg of Raisi’s three-nation tour in Nicaragua, the slain Iranian military commander continued to loom large. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega showered lavish praise on Soleimani, railing against his assassination by “Yankee imperialism.”
“We pay homage together with our heroes and martyrs to all the heroes and martyrs of Iran, in particular to General Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated by Yankee imperialism when he was fighting against terrorism,” Ortega said.
Iran’s president, for his part, said Washington has sought to “paralyze our people with threats and sanctions” but has failed, and slammed US sanctions against the two “independent countries.”
“Cooperation between Latin American countries and other independent countries across regions can forge unity that can help neutralize sanctions and increase the capacities (of countries),” Raisi noted, affirming that the Islamic Republic has “turned threats and sanctions into opportunities.”
On the final leg of his Latin American tour, Iran’s president and the accompanying Iranian delegation traveled to Cuba, another country suffering under decades of US economic siege, where he held extensive talks with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, who vowed to ramp up cooperation with Iran.
“When the president of Iran comes to our country under these conditions of sanctions against the nation of Cuba, it strengthens our faith and belief in Iran,” Diaz-Canel said, pointing to the spirit of camaraderie between the two sanctions-hit countries.
“Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Iran are among the countries that have heroically confronted sanctions, threats, blockades and interference by Yankee imperialism and its allies with a firm resistance,” he hastened to add.
Pertinently, weeks before Raisi’s visit to Havana, Iran, and Cuba were both listed by the Biden administration as countries that it said “are not cooperating fully” in the fight against terrorism.
A shared legacy
Raisi’s trip also illustrated that political solidarity knows no boundaries. While Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are admired in Iran, and the wider region, Qassem Soleimani has a massive following in Latin America.
The Iranian president’s Latin America tour arguably demonstrates the resilience of countries sanctioned by the US to secure their interests and neutralize attempts to isolate or consign them to oblivion.
The tour came amid the bustling diplomacy drive sweeping West Asia following the rapprochement between regional rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia in a deal brokered by China – Washington’s chief economic rival – as well as the dramatic transition from a unipolar to multipolar world order.
In an interview with Venezuela’s state-run news outlet TeleSUR in Caracas, Raisi said the US used to consider Latin America as its “backyard,” but the region now enjoys sovereignty “thanks to the spirit of people,” while pointing to the “common interests and goals” of Iran and Latin America.
“Iran has preserved its independence for 44 years (since the 1979 revolution), and we did not allow anyone to subdue us. We do not oppress anyone, and we will never accept that anyone oppresses us. Our will is to enjoy economic prosperity and grow.”
“It is a war of wills – the will of the people who want to be independent in the face of a dominant system that wants to subjugate everyone,” he added.
Iran isn’t isolated
These remarks show Raisi’s five-day tour carried a symbolic message – which went beyond the expansion of strategic and economic cooperation between Iran and Latin American countries – to look the ‘Great Satan’ in the eye in its own backyard and announce the new, US-free world order.
The visit carried another powerful message: If the US Navy can station its vessels in the Persian Gulf, 7,000 miles from the US mainland, and establish military bases and fleets in Iran’s neighborhood from Iraq to Bahrain, Iran can also expand its footprint in America’s backyard.
The difference is that the US had to manufacture pretexts for invasions and military interventions: Nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and the War on Terror are but two recent examples. Only now – after decades of false alarms and continuous, destructive conflict – is the US seeing its influence depreciate globally. At the same time, the Iranians are being invited and warmly embraced, exemplified not just in the recent Latin America tour, but on the other side of the world in Indonesia last month.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian who has also been busy on the diplomatic front, tweeted on 18 June:
“Striving for unity and brotherhood between the Muslim Ummah and the oppressed and aware people of the region; It was the same plan that the great hero of the fight against Zionism and terrorism did not sleep for 30 years! Obviously, this plan has enemies. But it is important that the plan is being pursued seriously.”
Far from being isolated, Iran is actively forging important political, trade, and security links with independent and sovereign states across the Global South – which is increasingly reluctant to toe an Atlanticist line. Trade and development deals aside, Raisi’s Latin American tour was designed to show Iran’s highest officials ambling across America’s backyard – far from isolated, defying Washington’s sanctions and diktats, and demonstrating just how much US power has declined.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
If you’re counting on Asia’s many new power centers to compete and clash – don’t. The Greater Eurasia Partnership is set to integrate them all – from the SCO, EAEU, and BRICS, to emerging new currencies – in order to replace the ‘rules-based order.’
On July 4, at a New Delhi summit, Iran will finally become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
That will be one of the key decisions of the summit, held via video-conference, along with the signing of a memorandum on the path by Belarus to also become a member state.
In parallel, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk has confirmed that Iran and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) should sign a free trade agreement (FTA) by the end of 2023.
The FTA will expand an interim deal that already lowers customs duties on hundreds of categories of goods.
Russia and Iran – two key poles of Eurasia integration – have been getting closer and closer geoeconomically since the west’s sanctions tsunami that followed Russia’s February 2022 Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine.
The EAEU – as much as the SCO and BRICS – is on a roll: FTAs are expected to be clinched, from middle to long term, with Egypt, India, Indonesia, and the UAE.
Overchuck admits negotiations may be “very difficult” and “take years,” considering “the interests of all five EAEU member states, their businesses, and their consumers.” Yet despite the obvious complexities, this high-speed rail geoeconomic train has already left the station.
This way for a SWIFT exit
In a parallel track, the members of the Asian Clearing Union (ACU), during a recent summit in Iran, decided to launch a new cross-border financial messaging system this month as a rival to the western-centric SWIFT.
The ACU comprises the Central Banks of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Iran: a healthy mix of West Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia.
It was the Central Bank of Iran – still under harsh sanctions – that developed the new bank messaging system, so new it’s not yet known by its own acronym.
Crucially, the Governor of Russia’s Central Bank took part in the ACU summit as an observer, along with officials from Belarus, which applied for ACU membership two weeks ago.
Iranian Central Bank Governor Mohammad Reza Farzin confirmed not only the interest of potential members to join the ACU, but also the drive to set up a basket of currencies for payment of bilateral trade deals. Call it a de-dollarization fast track.
As Iran’s first Vice President, Mohammad Mokhber summed it up: “De-dollarization is not a voluntary choice by countries anymore; it is an inevitable response to the weaponization of the dollar.”
Iran is now at the heart of all things multipolar. The recent discovery of a massive lithium field holding roughly 10 percent of the world’s reserves, coupled with the quite possible admission of Iran into the expanded BRICS – or BRICS+ – as early as this year, has bolstered scenarios of an upcoming BRICS currency backed by commodities: gold, oil, gas and – inevitably – lithium.
All this frantic Global South-led activity stands in sharp contrast to the sputtering deceleration of the Empire of Sanctions.
The Global South has had enough of the US sanctioning and banning whoever, whatever, and whenever they like, in defense of a hazy, arbitrary “rules-based international order.”
Yet exceptions are always made when the US itself badly needs to buy, for instance, Chinese rare earth and EV batteries. And while China continues to be harassed and threatened non-stop, Washington quietly urges it to continue to buy American corn and low-end chips from Micron.
This is what’s called “free and fair” trade in the US today.
The BRICS have other ideas to escape this vicious circle. Much will rely on an enhanced role for its New Development Bank (NDB), which comprises the five BRICS members as well as Bangladesh, the UAE, and Egypt. Uruguay will be joining soon, and the membership requests of Argentina, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe have also been approved.
According to Brazil’s former head of state and current NDB President Dilma Rousseff, decisions on new members will officially be announced at the upcoming August BRICS summit in South Africa.
Meanwhile, in Astana, Kazakhstan, the 20th round of the interminable Syrian peace process took place, congregating the foreign vice-ministers of Russia, Syria, Turkey, and Iran.
That should be the defining step in a “normalization road map” proposed by Moscow last month to finally regulate the role of the Turkish Army operating inside Syrian territory. Russian Foreign Vice-Minister Mikhail Bogdanov once again confirmed that the US is going all out to prevent a normalization between Damascus and Ankara – by supporting oil-stealing Kurdish militias in northern Syria.
A “broad integrative configuration”
All interlinked developments concerning SCO, BRICS, EAEU, and other multilateral mechanisms – now happening at breakneck speed – are converging in practice into a concept formulated in Russia back in 2018: the Greater Eurasia Partnership.
And who better to define it than Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: “Our flagship foreign political project is to [build] support for the concept of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. What we’re talking about is facilitating the objective process of forming a broad integrative configuration that is open for all countries and associations across our vast continent.”
As Lavrov routinely explains now in all of his important meetings, this includes “interlinking the complementary development plans” of the EAEU and China’s BRI; expanding interaction “within the framework of the SCO with the involvement of SCO observer states and dialogue partners;” “strengthening the strategic partnership” between Russia and ASEAN; and “establishing working contacts” among the executive bodies of the EAEU, SCO, and ASEAN.
Add to it the crucial interaction between the upcoming BRICS+ and all of the above; literally, everybody and their neighbor all across the Global South is queuing up to enter Club BRICS.
Lavrov envisions a “mutually beneficial, interlinking infrastructure” and a “continent-wide architecture of peace, development, and cooperation throughout Greater Eurasia.” And that ought to be expanded to the whole Global South.
It will help to have other brand new institutions jumping in. That’s the case of a new Russian think tank, the Geopolitical Observatory for Russia’s Key Issues (GORKI), to be led by Former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl, and set as a division of St. Petersburg State University focusing on West Asia studies and energy issues.
One of the key themes in that spectacularly successful Global South-oriented forum was, of course, the reindustrialization and reorientation of Russia’s export-import channels away from Europe and toward Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The UAE had a strong presence in St. Petersburg, pointing to a West Asia emphasis, where Russia’s geoeconomic future is increasingly developing. The scope and breadth of Global South-led discussions only underlined how the self-marginalized collective west has alienated the Global Majority, perhaps irretrievably.
On Vladimir Solovyov’s immensely popular political talk show, Russian film director Karen Shakhnazarov may have found the best way to succinctly formulate such a complex process as the Greater Eurasia Partnership.
He said that Russia is now reassuming the role of global champion of a new world order that the Soviet Union held at the start of the 1920s. In such context, the rage and uncontrolled Russophobia by the collective west is just plain impotence: howling the frustration of having “lost” Russia, when it would have been a no-brainer to keep it on its side.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
Europe must accept the fact that the world today is no longer the Western playground and that the growing anti-hegemonic sentiment among nations is irreversible.
It’s important to emphasize that Europe was not a victim in the current world order run by Washington, but rather a participant. Its contributions were destructive, filled with colonialism, theft, dismantling, and murder of nations that directly led to corruption, poverty, and injustice worldwide.
Europe’s bloody history
Despite Europe joining the global financial systems established by the US in the 20th century, such as the IMF and World Bank, the continent has used these tools to deepen its colonialism and expansion policies towards countries worldwide. It has even leveraged its position with bodies like the UN and UNSC to exploit weaker states and enforce its hegemonic agendas, including wealth looting and proxy wars against rivals politically and economically.
However, the rise of the Global South in recent years has allowed its nations to counter the hegemonic exploitation of international bodies by funneling their resources into their economies to advance in the new world order. By engaging with the Western coalition while shielding themselves from their malicious agendas, these nations can benefit in the long run.
Post-WW2 world order
After World War II, the United States emerged as an unrivaled superpower, untouched by the catastrophic destruction of the war and claiming a barely earned victory. Between 1944 and 1949, milestone events secured the unipolar order under the US and placed the EU under Washington’s direct influence for decades to come.
Bretton Woods in 1944 established the USD as the global reserve and trade currency, while the Marshall Plan in 1945 provided funding to Western European countries that agreed to follow America’s dictates to rehabilitate and rebuild their infrastructure and industrial capabilities (note that the plan’s funds were used to purchase American goods).
The establishment of the IMF and World Bank enforced the new world monetary and financial system crafted by Washington. The Truman Doctrine finally ensured that Western Europe became a follower of Washington’s foreign policies.
Establishing NATO, a war coalition under Washington’s direct control, was the highlight of that period. It served the interests of the United States and ensured that Europe did not attempt to create a sovereign military power but rather relied on the US for protection.
The final blows to Europe’s industrial complex in the 20th century were the Nixon Shock in 1971, where the bloc’s member states found themselves stuck with paper notes whose value was solely determined by Washington, and in 1974 when the United States and Saudi Arabia agreed to peg oil to the USD – establishing the petrodollar. This meant that Europe’s access to the world’s largest energy reserve was now controlled by Washington.
The petrodollar required Europe to maintain an abundance of USD reserves for oil purchases, resulting in increased investment in American treasury bonds and currency inflow to US markets. Despite partnering with the US in its bloody crusades over the past decades, the EU’s interests were not taken into consideration by Washington.
The US has used its European allies as tools in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the destruction of Libya and Syria, and relations with the Arab world (the world’s richest energy region). Although Europe faced similar political and public backlash, it was the US that acquired the real strategic interests.
Disregarding the changed world we live in, the EU continues to live under a WW2 mentality.
Despite warnings against militarily provoking Russia, the EU doubled down on the American-NATO illusion that being the strongest military coalition worldwide guarantees inevitable victory, and using force to impose the West’s worldview remains a viable option.
Self-destructive tendencies
After years of Russia sending signals and after many world vocal warnings, including from prominent Western figures like Kissinger, regarding NATO’s eastward expansion, European member states made the same mistake and adopted Washington’s doctrine on Moscow, leading to a conflict with Russia. Despite the historic failure of this approach, EU leaders repeatedly attempted to humiliate Russia and publicly claimed that the West aimed to bring Moscow to its knees since the beginning of the war in Ukraine until recently.
The conflict with Russia has deeper repercussions on the EU than just preventing mutually beneficial trade ties that would put both economies on a trajectory of development and growth. The United States aims to fight against the growing Global South, with China at the top, and to cut off any attempts by its European allies to further integrate with Asia’s rising powers.
Following the start of the war in Ukraine, Europe not only faced energy shortages, while US energy companies continued to extract oil from Iraq, Syria, and Libya but also realized how Washington was profiting from the very war they had incited. They were overcharged for LNG at three to four times the price sold within the domestic US market, which itself impacted their major industry’s capabilities to continue production.
On the other hand, the US led an international campaign to force its European allies mainly to adopt a price cap on Russian oil. But despite Washington’s push for this bill, Americans themselves were not affected nor were they directly part of the pressure campaign in Moscow, mainly since they did not rely on Russian oil, and with the petrodollar in place, it did not matter how much the EU paid for oil, as the currency used would go back to US banks.
Soon, Europe, left alone after countries such as Japan did not abide by the price cap, found that it still had to buy Russian Urals but with additional middlemen fees through countries such as India.
The EU witnessed firsthand the US tearing down their economies, which are under increased levels of deindustrialization, with industry giants moving to the US for lower energy prices and a more business-friendly environment crafted by Washington to lure companies mainly from its European allies.
As a result, Europe found itself seeking energy from African nations that it had previously colonized and destroyed. EU officials scrambled through countries like Algeria and Libya to secure gas and oil.
As the world order shifts towards a more multipolar one with a center of gravity shifting towards China, Europe has begun to become aware that the US-led model that has dominated the world order for decades has not brought the desired outcome for the bloc. Despite benefiting immorally from genocidal campaigns and being America’s partner in crime, Europe’s gains were short-lived.
With a history of self-destructive tendencies and after years of psycho-preparation and media propaganda, Europe was politically and economically prepared to repeat its historic mistakes in its approach to Russia and later to China.
The West quickly convinced its public that the rivalry with Russia was ideological and existential, that joining NATO and dropping neutrality (as with Finland and Sweden) was the only secure way to protect against the demons of the East, and that China is at the core of everything against the neoliberal values of the West.
Inevitable Multipolar world order
During a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York on April 18, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde noted that the world is becoming more multipolar, with a fragmentation of the global economy into competing blocs.
Lagarde stated that this new “global map” would have “first-order implications,” with the possibility of two blocs emerging, led by China and the US.
On many levels, Lagarde’s statement hits the core of the current world state of affairs.
The US reintroduced the political bloc mentality on a wider scale through the proxy war in Ukraine, pulling all its strings and employing all its accumulated influence to focus its power on obstructing a Eurasian uprising and realigning Europe’s foreign policy towards dismantling connections with China and Russia.
The post-WW2 era, characterized by bloc politics pushed by the US, is no longer feasible in the current period of deep integration, interest overlaps, and political complexity established by globalization, advanced trading networks, financial intertwining, and complementary production needs.
The West’s expansion of NATO forces to Russia’s border, followed by Moscow’s campaign to protect its national security, has put the global change on a pedestal.
The fallout of the Western-Russian war in Ukraine and the historic barrage of sanctions against Moscow has led to the fracturing of the financial system, and exposed the fragility of the West’s proclaimed “rules-based international world order”.
During an event hosted at Renmin University’s Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies last January to discuss the current state of world powers, the editor-in-chief of the Beijing Cultural Review (BCR) said that the fallout of the Western-Russian war in Ukraine led to events that could have never been imagined earlier.
“These [events] include the fracturing of the financial system, the expropriation and seizure of Russian private assets, and the freezing of Russian foreign exchange reserves. These are all abominable and unimaginable forms of confrontation,” Yang Ping said in his speech.
“The world is moving inexorably in the direction of decoupling. The phenomenon of politics affecting the economy and the capitalist political order no longer upholding the capitalist economic order is extremely striking.”
If not for the war in Ukraine, Ping’s statement regarding the world taking shape would have been shunned by Western experts as an illusion or merely a forecast, but now, and thanks to the West’s undivided efforts, the world is moving inexorably towards decoupling, and the phenomenon of politics affecting the economy is becoming strikingly apparent; a world with limited Western hegemony is on track to becoming an irreversible reality.
Europe’s amputated foreign policy
In recent months, top EU leaders including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, French President Emmanuel Macron, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock have visited China amid rising global tensions.
Their visits aimed to balance relations between the US and China as Washington’s hostility towards Beijing escalated, its sanctions against the Asian giant increased, and its provocative actions in the South China Sea intensified.
Macron’s visit, in particular, was noteworthy, as it seemed to reassure China of Europe’s distinct position from Washington’s policies against Asian giants. Despite announcing that the main reason for his visit was to push Beijing against arming Russia and push Moscow to end the war, behind the scenes, Macron’s visit aimed to assert Europe’s position.
He stated that Europe should not be caught up in a disordering of the world and crises that aren’t ours and that the government must build a “third pole.”
“We must be clear where our views overlap with the US, but whether it’s about Ukraine, relations with China, or sanctions, we have a European strategy,” the French leader said then.
“We don’t want to get into a bloc versus bloc logic.”
At first, many European leaders publicly announced or hinted at their support for Macron’s move, considering it a positive approach to their largest trading partner.
But later, some European leaders expressed their rejection of his statements, the most blatant of which was the finance minister in Scholz’s government, Christian Lindner, who said that Macron’s “Idea of strategic autonomy of the European Union,” is “naïve.” Of course, the statement was not objected to by the German Chancellor, signaling that the minister has also voiced Scholz’s opinion.
Following Lindner’s remarks, and after von der Leyen reaffirmed the bloc’s neutral position on the Taiwan Strait issue provoked by the US during an EU parliamentary hearing on April 18, Manfred Weber, who helms the Parliament’s largest group, the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), accused Macron of “destroying” European unity with his trip to China, and that the French president “weakened the EU” and “made clear the great rift within the European Union in defining a common strategic plan against Beijing.”
To counter Macron’s position that the Taiwan issue is not a European concern, Weber also compared the matter to the war going on in Ukraine from Washington’s perspective.
“We shouldn’t be surprised if Washington starts asking whether Ukraine is a European issue,” Weber said. The question they may ask, he warned: “Why should American taxpayers do so much to defend Ukraine?”
His comments, of course, are nothing but shortsighted and delusional, given that the war in Ukraine was created and pushed forward by the US’ decades-long policies on NATO’s take against Russia.
From an outside observer, the contradicting statements – while also taking into account that the bloc members are dividing roles – can only be described as a political mess, a loss of strategic planning, and entails that the union is currently lacking the tools to form a united framework to establish a basis to approach the Global South as a whole, and especially China.
Is the EU’s policy being molded by an actual comprehensive overview of the world’s geopolitical shifts, or is it being dictated by a handful of US pawns that have served nothing but American hawks since they took office?
Blind Economic outlook as bloc
The disunity in Europe extends beyond just their political approach to China, as trade policies with their largest business partner also show division.
In 2020, China and the EU agreed on a trade framework, eliminating Chinese restrictions on European companies and investments in China. However, the deal was put on hold after the bloc sanctioned Beijing for alleged human rights abuses and China responded with sanctions of its own.
Just under two weeks after Macron’s and von der Leyen’s trip to China, the EU leaders said that they consider the deal with China as not applicable anymore, following the events since it was reached in 2020.
“We started negotiations around about 10 years ago and concluded the comprehensive agreement on investment two years ago. A lot has happened since then,” she said, adding that Europe’s “position is that we do have to reassess the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment,” she said earlier in April.
On his part, Macron considered that the agreement today is “less urgent,” and “just not practicable”.
On the other hand, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz lately has been pushing for “reactivating” the agreement and considered it was time to reinstate the deal and put it back on track.
It is understandable that this dynamic is not unusual between world powers, especially at a time when the globe is witnessing historic geopolitical shifts, and it is definitely not unusual considering that the American influence across Europe and its leaders is still very significant, and Washington’s sanctions sword is constantly raised against its allies.
However, the lack of a united foreign policy within the bloc may negatively impact its position in the emerging multipolar world order and lead to the weakening or collapse of the union. Europe’s incomplete and fragile relations with growing global pillars, especially China and the emerging Global South, may also be observed from Beijing’s perspective.
Losing post-WW2 against Global South
Europe’s lack of clear foreign policy extends beyond its position on China, as it also pertains to the US’s declared soft war on the Asian giant.
For decades, Brussels relied on the assumption of a long-term realm by Washington as the unipolar power, which led the bloc to neglect sustainable and strong relations with the Global South.
Since the start of the war in Ukraine, the Global South has made unexpected, unprecedented moves, guided by the goal of forming sovereign policies that are far from Western hegemony led by Washington. They declared historic political shifts, leading to the formation of a new and influential world pillar in the multipolar era.
Protectionist economic policies, accompanied by subsidization, act for vital sectors like electric vehicles and batteries.
More systems (such as BRICS and SCO) and countries are growing monetary bodies and alternative trade frameworks to those dominated and influenced directly by the United States. It has become clear that political global organizations such as the UNSC and the UN, which were long exploited by Washington and its European allies to extend their hegemony and colonialism, are slowly losing more relevance and impact on the global arena.
On April 16, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, in an interview with CNN, said that the United States economic sanctions imposed on Russia and other nations have put the dollar’s hegemony at risk as targeted countries seek out an alternative.
“There is a risk when we use financial sanctions that are linked to the role of the dollar that over time it could undermine the hegemony of the dollar,” she said then.
Financial global institutions and systems such as the IMF, World Bank, and SWIFT, are gradually declining as de-dollarization proceeds and countries are finding alternatives to bypass the West’s complete influence, including mutual lending and local currency trade, sovereign projects, in addition to domestic SWIFT alternatives such as China’s CIPS, Russia’s SFPS, and Iran’s SEPAM, to name some.
The movement today is driven by Beijing along with other powers including Brazil, India, Russia, Iran, and South Africa, among others.
Despite all signs in previous years of the emergence of the new geopolitical reality, Europe failed to form appropriate policies and outline a vision to engage and adapt to these drastic global shifts, nor did it take advantage of some of the outcomes that fall into its interest, such as de-dollarization and the end of the petrodollar. Instead, Europe insisted on following Washington’s agenda, further sidelining its world influence.
Sidelined
On March 10, Iran and Saudi Arabia agreed to restore diplomatic relations and reopen missions after seven years of strained ties.
Talks were brokered in Beijing under the auspices of Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Western role, especially that of Washington, in inciting dispute and rift between the two nations was criminal, leading to tens of thousands of deaths, mass destruction, displacement of hundreds of thousands, and feelings of hate among the people of the region.
China managed in just a few months to achieve what the United Nations and other international political bodies failed to do, marking Beijing’s first public political approach to the Middle East. The Beijing-brokered rapprochement between Tehran and Riyadh reveals Europe’s falling influence in the region and the growing tendency of countries to sideline the West in bilateral issues. It also highlights China’s rise as a peace-bringing and key power in the region.
Oppressed nations rejoice
Europe’s centuries-long history of producing global superpowers makes it a hybrid bloc with a combined cultural, political, social, economic, and institutional maturity that can quickly adapt to world geopolitical shifts and overcome emerging challenges.
However, it can be argued that the current world challenges are unprecedented, especially with the concept of globalization and the world’s interconnectedness.
Europe today has limited options that require a new approach and view of the world, with a humble and realistic policy that acknowledges the end of its hegemony and the adoption of sovereignty and mutual respect in bilateral relations.
The EU must also accept that the world is no longer a Western playground and that anti-hegemonic sentiment among nations is irreversible in a multipolar world. Regardless of Europe’s decisions, oppressed nations are watching the declining global influence of the colonial bloc with joy.
Some readers were unimpressed when I excitedly shared the news on social media that Indonesia had refused to host the Israeli team as part of the Under-20 World Cup, scheduled from May 20 to June 11 in Indonesian cities.
Though any news related to Palestine and Israel often generates two sharply different kinds of responses, the latest act of Indonesian solidarity with the Palestinian people failed to impress even some pro-Palestine activists in the West. Their rationale had nothing to do with Palestine or Israel but the Indonesian government’s own human rights record.
This supposed dichotomy is as omnipresent as it is problematic. Some of the most genuine acts of solidarity with the Palestinians – or other oppressed nations in the Global South – tend to occur in other Southern nations and governments. But since the latter are frequently accused of poor human rights records by Western governments and West-based rights groups, these gestures of solidarity are often questioned as lacking substance.
Aside from the weaponization of human rights – and democracy – by Western governments, some of the concerns about human rights violations are worth a pause: can those who do not respect the rights of their own people be trusted to champion the rights of others?
THE LACK OF SELF-AWARENESS
Though intellectually intriguing, the argument, and the question, lack self-awareness, reek of entitlement, and reflect a poor understanding of history.
First, the lack of self-awareness. In the West, advocacy for Palestinian rights is predicated on reaching out, educating and lobbying some of the world’s most destructive colonial and neocolonial powers. This advocacy includes civil engagement with countries that have, for example, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, tormented Africa and continue to subjugate many nations in the Global South.
These Western governments were also the ones who either handed the deed of Palestine – Britain – to the Zionist movement or sustained Israel militarily, financially and politically for generations – the US and others.
Even though little tangible progress has been recorded regarding substantive political shifts away from Israel, we continue to engage with these governments with the hope that a change will come.
Rarely do Western activists make arguments similar to those made against Indonesia – or other Asian, African, Arab or Muslim countries. Personally, never once have I been reminded of the moral conflict of pursuing solidarity from Western governments that have long invested in the oppression of the Palestinian people.
THE ENTITLEMENT
Second, the entitlement. For many years and, particularly since the end of World War II, western governments endeavored to serve the roles of judge, jury and executioner. They drafted international law yet selectively implemented it. They passed the Human Rights Declaration yet selfishly determined who deserves this humanity. They launched wars in the name of defending others, yet left in their wake more death and mayhem than existed prior to these ‘humanitarian interventions.’
Some human rights activists in the West rarely appreciate that their influence is primarily derived from their very geographic position and, more importantly, citizenship. This is why Hannah Arendt rightly argued that individuals could only enjoy human rights once they obtain the right to be citizens of a nation-state. “Human rights lose all their significance as soon as an individual loses her political context,” she wrote in her seminal book, The Right to Have Rights.
Though some activists have paid a heavy price for their genuine solidarity with the Palestinian people, others understand solidarity in purely conceptual terms, without considering the numerous political obstacles and, sometimes, compromises an occupied nation faces.
A protest in Jakarta against Israeli participation in the FIFA Under-20 World Cup in Indonesia, March 20, 2023. Achmad Ibrahim | AP
The fact that Palestinian civil societies launched the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in 2005, in that particular order, reflects the awareness among Palestinians that it will take more than individual acts of solidarity to end the Israeli occupation and to dismantle Israeli apartheid. Divestment means that companies that benefit from the Israeli occupation must sever their ties with Israel – even if some of these companies may have questionable practices.
The same logic applies to sanctions, which require a strong political will by governments to ostracize Tel Aviv until it ends its occupation, respects international law and treats Palestinians as equal citizens.
If having a perfect human rights record is a prerequisite for government support, not many countries, if any, will qualify. Oppressed people simply cannot be so entitled, as they do not have the privilege or the leverage to shape a perfectly harmonious global solidarity.
A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY
Finally, the need for a better understanding of history. Before the signing of the Oslo Accords between the Palestinian leadership and Israel in 1993, the term ‘human rights’ was an important component of the Palestinian struggle. But it was neither the only nor the main driving force behind the Palestinian quest for freedom. For Palestinians, all aspects of Palestinian resistance, including the pursuit of human rights, were parts of a larger liberation strategy.
Oslo changed all of that. It shunned such terms as resistance and redefined the Palestinian struggle from that of liberation to human rights. As a result, the Palestinian Authority respected its assigned task, and many Palestinians played along simply because they felt they had no other alternative.
Yet, by elevating the human rights discourse, Palestinians were entrapped in entirely Western priorities. Their language, which, in the past, was consistent with revolutionary lessons of anti-colonial movements in the Middle East, Africa and the rest of the Global South, was rejigged to appeal to Western expectations.
This should not suggest that anti-colonial movements did not champion human rights discourses. On the contrary, such lessons were at the core of millions of people’s valiant struggles and sacrifices worldwide. But for them, human rights was not an isolated moral position nor a political stance to be used or manipulated to highlight the moral superiority of the West over the rest or to sanction poor countries, often for the sake of exacting political or economic concessions.
Palestinians care deeply about the human rights of other nations. They ought to because they have experienced firsthand what it means to be stripped of their rights and humanity. But, also, they are in no position, nor should they seek one that would allow them to condition solidarity from others on the West’s politicized human rights agendas.
The single Iranian-Saudi handshake buried trillions of dollars of western divide-and-rule investments across West Asia, and has global leaders rushing to Beijing for global solutions.
Photo Credit: The Cradle
Pepe Escobar is a columnist at The Cradle, editor-at-large at Asia Times and an independent geopolitical analyst focused on Eurasia. Since the mid-1980s he has lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore and Bangkok. He is the author of countless books; his latest one is Raging Twenties.
The idea that History has an endpoint, as promoted by clueless neoconservatives in the unipolar 1990s, is flawed, as it is in an endless process of renewal. The recent official meeting between Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud and Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian in Beijing marks a territory that was previously deemed unthinkable and which has undoubtedly caused grief for the War Inc. machine.
This single handshake signifies the burial of trillions of dollars that were spent on dividing and ruling West Asia for over four decades. Additionally, the Global War on Terror (GWOT), the fabricated reality of the new millennium, featured as prime collateral damage in Beijing.
Beijing’s optics as the capital of peace have been imprinted throughout the Global South, as evidenced by a subsequent sideshow where a couple of European leaders, a president, and a Eurocrat, arrived as supplicants to Xi Jinping, asking him to join the NATO line on the war in Ukraine. They were politely dismissed.
Still, the optics were sealed: Beijing had presented a 12-point peace plan for Ukraine that was branded “irrational” by the Washington beltway neocons. The Europeans – hostages of a proxy war imposed by Washington – at least understood that anyone remotely interested in peace needs to go through the ritual of bowing to the new boss in Beijing.
The irrelevance of the JCPOA
Tehran-Riyadh relations, of course, will have a long, rocky way ahead – from activating previous cooperation deals signed in 1998 and 2001 to respecting, in practice, their mutual sovereignty and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.
Everything is far from solved – from the Saudi-led war on Yemen to the frontal clash of Persian Gulf Arab monarchies with Hezbollah and other resistance movements in the Levant. Yet that handshake is the first step leading, for instance, to the Saudi foreign minister’s upcoming trip to Damascus to formally invite President Bashar al-Assad to the Arab League summit in Riyadh next month.
It’s crucial to stress that this Chinese diplomatic coup started way back with Moscow brokering negotiations in Baghdad and Oman; that was a natural development of Russia stepping in to help Iran save Syria from a crossover NATO-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) coalition of vultures.
Then the baton was passed to Beijing, in total diplomatic sync. The drive to permanently bury GWOT and the myriad, nasty ramifications of the US war of terror was an essential part of the calculation; but even more pressing was the necessity to demonstrate how the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iran nuclear deal, had become irrelevant.
Both Russia and China have experienced, inside and out, how the US always manages to torpedo a return to the JCPOA, as it was conceived and signed in 2015. Their task became to convince Riyadh and GCC states that Tehran has no interest in weaponizing nuclear power – and will remain a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Then it was up to Chinese diplomatic finesse to make it quite clear that the Persian Gulf monarchies’ fear of revolutionary Shi’ism is now as counter-productive as Tehran’s dread of being harassed and/or encircled by Salafi-jihadis. It’s as if Beijing had coined a motto: drop these hazy ideologies, and let’s do business.
And business it is, and will be: better yet, mediated by Beijing and implicitly guaranteed by both nuclear superpowers Russia and China.
Hop on the de-dollarization train
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) may exhibit some Soprano-like traits, but he’s no fool: he instantly saw how this Chinese offer morphed beautifully into his domestic modernization plans. A Gulf source in Moscow, familiar with MbS’ rise and consolidation of power, details the crown prince’s drive to appeal to the younger Saudi generation who idolize him. Let girls drive their SUVs, go dancing, let their hair down, work hard, and be part of the “new” Saudi Arabia of Vision 2030: a global tourism and services hub, a sort of Dubai on steroids.
And, crucially, this will also be a Eurasia-integrated Saudi Arabia; future, inevitable member of both the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS+ – just like Iran, which will also be sitting at the same communal tables.
From Beijing’s point of view, this is all about its ambitious, multi-trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). A key BRI connectivity corridor runs from Central Asia to Iran and then beyond, to the Caucasus and/or Turkey. Another one – in search of investment opportunities – runs through the Arabian Sea, the Sea of Oman, and the Persian Gulf, part of the Maritime Silk Road.
Beijing wants to develop BRI projects in both corridors: call it “peaceful modernization” applied to sustainable development. The Chinese always remember how the Ancient Silk Roads plied Persia and parts of Arabia: in this case, we have History Repeating Itself.
A geopolitical revolution
And then comes the Holy Grail: energy. Iran is a prime gas supplier to China, a matter of national security, inextricably linked to their $400 billion-plus strategic partnership deal. And Saudi Arabia is a prime oil supplier. Closer Sino-Saudi relations and interaction in key multipolar organizations such as the SCO and BRICS+ advance the fateful day when the petroyuan will be definitely enshrined.
China and the UAE have already clinched their first gas deal in yuan. The high-speed de-dollarization train has already left the station. ASEAN is already actively discussing how to bypass the dollar to privilege settlements in local currencies – something unthinkable even a few months ago. The US dollar has already been thrown into a death by a thousand cuts spiral.
And that will be the day when the game reaches a whole new unpredictable level.
The destructive agenda of the neocon leaders in charge of US foreign policy should never be underestimated. They exploited the 9/11 “new Pearl Harbor” pretext to launch a crusade against the lands of Islam in 2001, followed by a NATO proxy war against Russia in 2014. Their ultimate ambition is to wage war against China before 2025.
However, they are now facing a swift geopolitical and geoeconomic revolt of the World’s Heartland – from Russia and China to West Asia, and extrapolating to South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa and selected latitudes in Latin America.
The turning point came on 26 February, 2022, when Washington’s neocons – in a glaring display of their shallow intellects – decided to freeze and/or steal the reserves of the only nation on the planet equipped with all the commodities that really matter, and with the necessary nous to unleash a momentous shift to a monetary system not anchored in fiat money.
That was the fateful day when the cabal, identified by journalist Seymour Hersh as responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, actually blew the whistle for the high-speed de-dollarization train to leave the station, led by Russia, China, and now – welcome on board – Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 
