Author: Caracal

  • Israel Expands War to Southern Lebanon

    Israel Expands War to Southern Lebanon

    After a series of missile exchanges and targeted strikes, it is clear that Israel is now at war with Hezbollah. Having nearly completed its campaign in Gaza, Israel is shifting its focus to the next target, following a well-executed plan. However, this conflict will not be as straightforward as Gaza. In Gaza, Israel primarily dealt with media coverage of civilian casualties – images of dead bodies, crying children, and grieving women that fueled international outrage from left-wing and liberal movements. Militarily, Hamas posed little threat. In contrast, Hezbollah operates from Lebanon, an independent country with strategic advantages, such as its mountainous terrain and easy connections to Iran and other regional militant groups. Nevertheless, Israel appears determined, and the war is already in motion. Lebanon, a nation already devastated by economic and political collapse, faces the grim possibility of becoming the next Gaza.

    Lebanon’s health ministry reports that at least 500 people have been killed and 1,645 injured in a series of Israeli airstrikes on alleged Hezbollah targets, marking the highest daily death toll in the country since the end of its civil war in 1990. As Israel intensifies its offensive, thousands of residents are fleeing towns and villages in southern Lebanon. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the military’s actions as shifting the security balance along Israel’s northern border, though his remarks seemed to downplay the severity of the situation. Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, indicated that the military is preparing for the next phases in Lebanon, withholding further details. Israel appears determined to dismantle Hezbollah’s parallel governance in southern Lebanon, which it claims exists solely to target Israel and pursue a religious mandate to kill Jews.

    The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) reported striking over 1,300 Hezbollah targets in the past day, marking its most extensive assault on the group since the Gaza war began last October, when Hezbollah started attacking in solidarity with Hamas. The success rate of Israel’s missile operations remains high, and more strikes are expected in the coming days, possibly before any ground invasion is considered. Earlier in the day, the IDF issued warnings to Lebanese residents in Beirut and other areas via phone calls, urging them to evacuate and avoid buildings suspected of housing Hezbollah weapons. Israeli media later clarified that these strikes were not indiscriminate missile barrages but were specifically targeting Hezbollah operatives, including Ali Karaki, the group’s third-ranking military commander. Reports suggest the operation was successful. Meanwhile, about 35 rockets were fired from Lebanon toward Israel’s Safed area, with some landing in open fields near the community of Ami’ad, according to the IDF.

    Lebanon is now bracing for the possibility of a ground war, not by mobilizing its military but by focusing on protecting its citizens. A direct confrontation with Israel is beyond the country’s capabilities, and unlike Hezbollah, the Lebanese people do not view martyrdom in battle as a national or religious duty. Families fleeing southern Lebanon are publicly pleading for apartments or rooms to shelter their loved ones. Grassroots housing efforts have quickly emerged, with individuals coordinating calls for available spaces and hostels offering discounted rates to those displaced by the conflict. Meanwhile, international efforts to evacuate foreign nationals from Lebanon are underway, with countries like the U.S. issuing calls for peace, though such interventions often prove ineffective. Hezbollah, for its part, has vowed to continue its strikes in support of Palestinians and Hamas.

    For over four decades, a shadowy and unyielding conflict has simmered between Israel and Hezbollah. Now, with steely determination, and despite the geographic and military risk factors, Israel appears intent on bringing this protracted struggle to a definitive conclusion. Israel’s resolute commitment to pursue this conflict may push Hezbollah into a corner, even though they appear stronger on paper. It is clear that, just as Gazan civilians have borne the brunt of hostilities, Lebanese civilians, too, will face the consequences. While Israel has been forged in the crucible of existential threats and built to withstand aggression, Lebanon, fractured and vulnerable, is far less prepared and could easily collapse. Should a ground war unfold, it would not only devastate Lebanon but also send ripples throughout the region. Such a conflict would signal to militants in Syria, Yemen, and Iran that they need to prepare for what lies ahead.

  • Sri Lanka’s Communist President Sworn In

    Sri Lanka’s Communist President Sworn In

    Anura Kumara Dissanayake, a Marxist leader who has emerged victorious in Sri Lanka’s presidential election, has been inaugurated as the nation’s new president. He steps into this role amid a landscape fraught with severe economic distress, dire living conditions, and intricate geopolitical challenges. For many, Dissanayake embodies the hopes of the common people, symbolizing a shift away from the entrenched political dynasties that have long been associated with corruption and mismanagement. The electorate’s decisive rejection of the old political elite, held culpable for the ongoing economic malaise, has paved the way for this momentous change. Dissanayake’s ascendance is not merely a political victory; it signifies a profound desire for accountability and renewal in a country yearning for stability and progress.

    The presidential election advanced to a runoff for the first time in the country’s history, as no candidate managed to secure the requisite 50% of the votes in the initial round. Anura Kumara Dissanayake and opposition leader Sajith Premadasa emerged as the frontrunners, yet neither could claim outright victory, highlighting the hard fought election. As the second-preference votes were counted, Premadasa gained some ground, but Dissanayake’s initial lead proved insurmountable. The final results revealed a significant margin, with Premadasa garnering only 32.76% of the vote, nearly 10% behind Dissanayake, who ultimately won by a commanding lead of over 1.2 million votes. Following the tally of second-choice votes, Dissanayake was declared the victor, marking a pivotal moment for the nation. In stark contrast, Ranil Wickremesinghe, who took office amid the economic turmoil of 2022 and implemented stringent austerity measures, languished in third place with a mere 17.27% of the vote. Meanwhile, a member of the ousted Rajapaksa family trailed far behind, finishing fourth with just 3%, a reflection of the electorate’s growing disenchantment with the Rajapaksa dynasty.

    Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s victory as the leader of the hardline leftist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and a prominent figure in the broader National People’s Power (NPP) coalition is widely regarded as a watershed moment for his party. In the 2019 presidential election, the NPP managed to secure a mere 3% of the vote, while the JVP currently holds only three seats in parliament. Historically, the JVP has been perceived as an unelectable fringe group, tarnished by its involvement in violent uprisings and targeted assassinations that claimed thousands of lives in the 1980s. The party has also faced multiple bans over the years, further entrenching its reputation as a radical outlier in Sri Lankan politics. Dissanayake’s ascent challenges these long-held perceptions, signaling a potential recalibration of the political landscape.

    Since the early 2020s, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) has steadily gained political momentum, driven by Sri Lanka’s deepening economic and political crisis. As the nation declared itself virtually bankrupt, a pervasive disillusionment with the entrenched political parties and leaders that had long held sway began to take root. Anura Kumara Dissanayake adeptly harnessed this growing discontent, dedicating the two years following the protests that ousted Rajapaksa to cultivating grassroots support. Under Dissanayake’s leadership, the National People’s Power (NPP) attracted a wave of new voters, championing an agenda of anti-corruption and transparency while toning down the JVP’s previously extreme Marxist rhetoric. In a deliberate effort to reshape the party’s image, Dissanayake sought to distance it from its violent past, publicly apologizing for the killings committed during earlier insurrections.

    In an election centered on the pressing need for economic recovery, Anura Kumara Dissanayake skillfully tapped into the anger and frustration that had fueled the Aragalaya protests. He wholeheartedly embraced the movement’s critique of the political elite, calling for an end to corruption and political patronage, while assuring the public that those responsible for past wrongdoings would be held accountable. Dissanayake went a step further by pledging to renegotiate the terms of the IMF deal, which many viewed as excessively punitive towards the country’s most vulnerable populations. This clear stance resonated deeply with the electorate, dispelling any lingering doubts and leading them to decisively cast their votes for Dissanayake as the next president.

    Dissanayake’s victory has ignited considerable concern in New Delhi, as the ascent of a pro-communist, pro-China leader in Colombo presents a formidable challenge for India. With Sri Lanka already burdened by significant debt to China, there are fears that Dissanayake may seek to bolster ties with Beijing, a move that could serve China’s strategic interests. Compounding these anxieties is the apprehension among the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, which endured a tragic genocide under the previous Rajapaksa regime. Many Tamils harbor doubts about Dissanayake’s stance, particularly given his prior support for military actions during the civil war. As the situation unfolds, any grievances faced by the Tamil community could pose additional complications for India, underscoring the intricate geopolitical dynamics at play in the region.

    However, political experts believe that Sri Lanka cannot progress without the support of its larger neighbor. They argue that Dissanayake’s brand of communism has been diluted by the need for practicality, suggesting he may ultimately seek to strengthen relationships with India. A strong partnership with India could enable Sri Lanka to effectively navigate its geopolitical landscape, and potentially lift the country out of its economic dilemma.

  • Can Modi and BJP Conquer Jammu and Kashmir?

    Can Modi and BJP Conquer Jammu and Kashmir?

    Jammu and Kashmir, India’s northernmost and predominantly Muslim territory, has long posed a challenge for the Indian government due to increased terrorist attacks and Islamist extremism. International media, which have consistently supported secession efforts in Kashmir, often celebrate each clash between extremists and the Indian military, thereby garnering overseas backing for these movements. However, for the Indian government and its people, Kashmir is an emotional issue, deeply rooted in history, and they are unwilling to give it up. While previous union governments in New Delhi granted Kashmir certain privileges and special status, partly in response to international pressure, the current Hindu nationalist government under Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has taken a different approach. They revoked Kashmir’s special constitutional status and made it a union territory to promote assimilation, sparking significant displeasure at the international level, particularly from Muslim-majority countries.

    It has long been the BJP’s goal to form a government single-handedly in the state, though the Muslim majority largely opposes them. Ten years ago, the BJP formed a coalition government with the PDP, a local party, but the alliance quickly collapsed due to internal disunity. The union government subsequently made Jammu and Kashmir a union territory with direct administration. Nevertheless, the BJP understands that securing a majority government in the state is crucial for making key decisions and avoiding court interventions. Having achieved seemingly impossible victories in other Indian states through well-engineered election strategies, the BJP is now fighting hard in the ongoing assembly elections.

    The BJP is confident this time, with several positive factors working in its favor, starting with the fact that the party is stronger now. In addition to securing the Hindu vote, it has made inroads among minority groups such as Sikhs, Buddhists, and even some Muslim factions. The party’s electoral performance has also improved significantly. In the last assembly election, the BJP’s best performance saw them winning 25 out of 87 seats. This time, with constituencies redrawn and the total number of seats increased to 90, the party needs 45 seats to secure a majority.

    The increase in seat numbers is expected to boost the BJP’s chances, as more seats have been added in the Hindu-majority Jammu region. Six additional seats were allocated to Jammu, while only one was added to the Kashmir region, bringing the total number of seats in Jammu to 37. If the BJP can secure over 30 seats in Jammu, they would only need 15 or fewer from Kashmir. For the BJP, it is relatively easy to garner support from independent candidates and smaller parties, and they also anticipate nominations from the Lieutenant Governor. The BJP has also found an opportunity in the division among the opposition. Although the Indian National Congress (INC) has joined forces with the National Conference (NC), Kashmir’s largest party, they have been unable to bring the influential JKPDP into the alliance, which is expected to split the vote.

    Another positive factor is the increasing tendency of people in Kashmir to move away from traditional political parties like the NC, JKPDP, and INC, and support independent candidates, as seen in recent elections. Improved security is also expected to benefit the BJP, as more people in the Kashmir Valley may feel safe enough to vote for the party, which they previously avoided due to fear and threats. Additionally, the BJP is optimistic about the impact of development projects and significant infrastructure investments across various sectors in the state.

    The BJP faces considerable challenges as well. First, the Islamist population in Jammu and Kashmir is determined to defeat BJP candidates by supporting any viable alternative. Defeating the BJP is their main objective. As a result, the BJP faces threats even in the Hindu-majority Jammu region. With major national parties, including the Indian National Congress (INC), BSP, and AAP, contesting in Jammu, they could potentially garner Hindu votes in conjunction with support from the Islamist vote, allowing them to win over the BJP. Any losses for the BJP in Jammu region could undermine its dream of securing a majority, especially if the INC attempts to unite all parties except the BJP to form a government.

    There are also internal issues. Local protests against candidates chosen by the central BJP leadership could lead to votes shifting toward the opposition. Additionally, the INC-NC alliance poses a significant threat to the BJP in the Kashmir region. If terrorist attacks increase near the polling dates, it could further damage the BJP’s chances.

    It’s clear that, without significant support from the Muslim population, the BJP is unlikely to secure a majority in Jammu and Kashmir. While the party has emphasized infrastructure development, security improvements, and welfare programs in the region, the core issue remains religion, as the Kashmir issue is deeply rooted in religious divisions. The BJP is countering this by consolidating non-Muslim votes and attempting to attract liberal and nationalist Muslim voters. If the BJP succeeds with this tactic, it could finally achieve a majority in Jammu and Kashmir. Otherwise, the result will likely follow the usual pattern of favoring coalition governments.

  • Will the China-Backed Canal Reduce Cambodia’s Reliance on Vietnam?

    Will the China-Backed Canal Reduce Cambodia’s Reliance on Vietnam?

    For decades, Cambodia has regarded Vietnam with a wary eye, an undercurrent of suspicion flowing through its society. Across the country’s diverse social fabric, a significant portion of the population nurses a deep-seated animosity toward its eastern neighbor, blaming Vietnam for a host of domestic troubles. This long-standing resentment has crystallized into a widely held belief that the Vietnamese are not only untrustworthy but capable of malevolent deeds.

    The friction between the two nations is not confined to old grievances; it festers in the present. Border disputes linger unresolved, and the presence of Vietnamese immigrants within Cambodia’s borders stirs anxieties of a more existential nature. Some Cambodians fear that these immigrants could become pawns in a broader Vietnamese strategy to exert dominance over the country. This rising tide of anti-Vietnamese sentiment is fed by a variety of factors – both historical and contemporary – and has recently manifested in protests across Phnom Penh. These demonstrations are but the latest iteration of a familiar political strategy, wherein leaders, sensing an opportunity, stoke fears of foreign encroachment to rally popular support.

    Despite this animosity, Cambodia’s political and economic structures remain deeply intertwined with Vietnam, especially in trade and business. The Mekong River, Cambodia’s lifeline and vital for agriculture and the transportation of goods and people, flows into Vietnam and eventually opens to the sea, making Cambodia dependent on Vietnamese ports for maritime access. This reliance gives Vietnam significant leverage in its dealings with Cambodia. Although Cambodia has its own coastline and ports, the challenging terrain makes the Mekong River a more practical route for transporting goods and facilitating commerce.

    Reducing this dependence has long been a goal for Cambodian policymakers. In pursuit of this objective, the government has proposed a costly project to reroute the Mekong River to the Cambodian coast via a canal. However, securing funding for such a massive undertaking has proven challenging. The only nation willing to assist Cambodia is China, known for financing projects in countries with limited capacity for repayment. China has expressed interest in the canal project, even considering the potential disruptions it may cause to Vietnamese ports – an intriguing dilemma, especially given China’s close relationship with Vietnam.

    The canal, commonly known as the Funan Techno Canal and officially named the Tonle Bassac Navigation Road and Logistics System Project, will span 180 km. The project aims to connect Phnom Penh with Cambodia’s only deep-sea port in Sihanoukville and the newly developed port in Kampot. The plan includes the construction of three dams with sluices and eleven bridges. The estimated completion date is 2028, with a projected cost of $1.7 billion, entirely funded by the China Road and Bridge Corporation. The canal will be developed under a build-operate-transfer (BOT) contract, with hopes of reducing reliance on Vietnamese ports, particularly Cai Mep. Unsurprisingly, Vietnam has raised environmental concerns regarding the project, but Cambodia is determined to move forward. The canal’s groundbreaking ceremony took place on August 5, 2024.

    Photo Credit: Radio Free Asia

    The canal offers enormous opportunities for Cambodia by providing crucial access to the sea, which is essential for economic growth. With this project, Cambodian businesses will gain direct access to maritime routes, significantly reducing costs. The areas surrounding the canal are expected to experience a surge in investment, leading to further infrastructure development that will undoubtedly boost the economy. Cambodia is already a favored partner of China, and reports indicate that developing infrastructure will create more investment opportunities in the country, signaling a potential influx of foreign capital.

    Politically, the leaders who have brought this project to fruition are likely to be celebrated as heroes, particularly for fulfilling a generational demand to reduce Cambodia’s dependence on Vietnam. President Hun Sen, whose administration has championed this ambitious initiative, envisions it as a cornerstone of his legacy – not as a leader besmirched by corruption, but as the architect of a transformative achievement for Cambodia. The canal is also anticipated to alter the region’s geopolitical landscape, fostering a greater separation between Cambodia and Vietnam. In a recent speech, Prime Minister Hun Manet underscored that the canal – his father’s brainchild – will not only boost the economy but also enhance Cambodia’s independence, promote trade, industry, and agriculture, and ensure efficient water management.

    However, this project also carries significant risks. The massive investment from China, coupled with interest rates that Cambodia may struggle to repay, could further bind the country to Chinese influence. This dependence on Chinese policies and products might lead to a challenging economic situation, with Cambodia potentially falling into a debt trap similar to those experienced by Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Consequently, much of the revenue generated by the project may ultimately flow back to China.

    Projects involving transboundary rivers are often mired in disputes, driven by conflicting national interests. While the canal promises substantial benefits for Cambodia, it simultaneously poses risks for Vietnam, likely exacerbating tensions between the two countries. As a partner to both, China may find itself in the delicate position of mediating the issue, seeking to navigate the complexities without drawing in external parties. Yet, it is evident that this canal has the potential to alter the political and economic dynamics of the region.

  • Sri Lanka Heads to Polls to Choose Next President

    Sri Lanka Heads to Polls to Choose Next President

    Sri Lanka is set to hold a crucial presidential election on Saturday, following years of political and economic turmoil that nearly brought the nation to its knees. While this lush, green island is often admired for its natural beauty, it is equally known for its entrenched political dynasties, favoritism, civil war, corruption, and destructive governance. Home to 23 million people, the Indian Ocean nation has endured widespread hunger, medical shortages, and unemployment during the worst economic crisis in its history. In response, a youth-led movement, known locally as the Aragalaya, emerged two years before and successfully ousted the authoritarian president Gotabaya Rajapaksa, bringing an end to his powerful family dynasty. Although two years have passed, improvements have been slow, and the country’s recovery remains incomplete.

    As Sri Lanka gears up to elect a new president on Saturday – the first election since Rajapaksa’s downfall – many believe the economic crisis continues to wreak havoc on daily life, and the optimism that once fueled the Aragalaya movement has largely diminished. Analysts highlight a pervasive disillusionment with traditional politics, suggesting that no single candidate is likely to achieve a decisive victory. However, Three frontrunners have emerged: the current president, Ranil Wickremesinghe, who took office following Rajapaksa’s departure; opposition leader Sajith Premadasa; and Anura Kumara Dissanayake, whose left-wing coalition has recently gained momentum.

    While the Aragalaya movement sparked hopes for change and a break from the corrupt dynastic politics that have long dominated Sri Lanka, many view Wickremesinghe as part of the old, crooked establishment. As an unelected president without a popular mandate or a parliamentary majority, he has relied heavily on the support of the Rajapaksas party to push through his policies. Under Wickremesinghe’s government, none of the Rajapaksas or their close associates have faced investigation or consequences, despite widespread accusations of embezzling state assets and committing human rights abuses. In a telling sign of how little has changed, Namal Rajapaksa, the nephew of former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa and one of those accused of corruption, is also running for president.

    Premadasa, leader of the opposition for the past five years, has built a reputation as a champion of the poor, running on a platform of generous welfare policies. However, for large sections of the electorate, the desire for a decisive break from the past has fueled a surge of support for a former outsider: left-wing leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, head of the Marxist National People’s Power (NPP) coalition. His rallies have drawn large crowds, attracted by bold promises to hold those who looted Sri Lanka’s assets accountable and deliver deep systemic change, including an end to corruption – core demands of the Aragalaya. However, concerns remain over Dissanayake’s Marxist party, which led a bloody armed revolt in the 1980s using guerrilla tactics against its opponents, leaving a legacy that continues to cast suspicion over the party’s intentions.

    Sri Lanka, a nation that endured over 26 years of civil war and remains deeply divided along ethnic lines, has traditionally seen elections dominated by issues of race, religion, and conflict. However, this time, the election is primarily focused on the economy. Ranil Wickremesinghe, a six-time former prime minister who took over as president for the final two years of Rajapaksa’s term, is positioning himself as the candidate of economic stability. He has negotiated a $2.9 billion  bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), strengthened foreign currency reserves, and brought inflation under control.

    Though long queues at petrol stations have vanished and vital foreign imports have resumed, poverty levels have doubled in the past two years, now affecting 25% of the population. Wickremesinghe’s unpopular policies are widely blamed for worsening conditions, hitting the poorest hardest. Many have questioned the strict terms of the IMF loan, including high taxes and limited long-term debt relief, with some analysts criticizing Wickremesinghe for negotiating a flawed deal. However, many believe this election is just another performance by a well-connected political elite, designed to deceive the public.

  • Is the Maldives Swimming Back to India?

    Is the Maldives Swimming Back to India?

    Tiny islands, with limited resources and facing significant climate threats, cannot survive without the support of the mainland. The Maldives has come to realize this now. When tourism revenue was flowing, and China appeared strong, they believed they no longer needed India. However, they forgot that India is their best option for survival. Now, they are working to improve and rebuild their lost relationship with India. Before Malé transformed into a striking concrete block in the sea, Indian cities, especially Thiruvananthapuram and Kochi, served as their gateway to the world. While various interest groups, including Sri Lanka, sought to destabilize the islands through terrorist attacks, India provided security, allowing them to live peacefully. Today, they are once again seeking India’s support, much like a child who, after straying away with wealthy friends, ultimately realizes where true safety lies and returns to their family. 

    Maldives President Mohamed Muizzu, who rose to power last year on an “India Out” and pro-Islamic platform, and surrounded himself with politicians known for anti-India rhetoric, is now preparing for a diplomatic trip to New Delhi, according to his aides. This marks a significant shift for Muizzu, who had previously avoided the traditional ceremonial first overseas visit to New Delhi and, in April, ordered the withdrawal of a small Indian military contingent that had been operating reconnaissance aircraft provided by India. By May, the Maldives had signed a defense agreement with China. Additionally, the Maldives chose not to renew a 2019 hydrographic survey agreement with India and withdrew from several other cooperative agreements. Earlier this year, Maldivian deputy ministers were caught making derogatory remarks about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his efforts to boost tourism in Lakshadweep, a neighboring Indian archipelago.

    While the Indian government remained silent, the backlash from Indian citizens was swift. Calls to boycott the Maldives spread, threatening the country’s tourism-dependent economy, which heavily relies on Indian visitors. Despite this, Muizzu stood firm, accusing critics of trying to “Bully” the Maldives. However, without Indian tourists, the Maldives faces a potential economic crisis.

    President Muizzu’s planned visit to New Delhi could indicate a significant shift and a desire to repair relations. While it’s premature to label this a complete policy reversal, it certainly represents a positive step for India-Maldives ties. The recent resignation of two junior ministers who ridiculed Prime Minister Modi suggests that Muizzu is eager to foster a healthy relationship with New Delhi. However, this effort is unlikely to come at the expense of his pro-China stance. The Maldives cannot afford to deteriorate its relationship with China, especially given its substantial debt to the country, which is not easily repayable.

    The Maldives urgently requires international support as it grapples with rising debt, declining revenue, and dwindling foreign reserves. Running a budget deficit, the island nation has been seeking external assistance and grants. Many worry that without a viable growth strategy, the Maldives could follow in the footsteps of Sri Lanka, which experienced a severe economic collapse two years ago. Last week, credit rating agency Moody’s downgraded the Maldives, indicating that default risks have markedly increased due to persistently low foreign exchange reserves. The agency also pointed out that the prospects for a rapid recovery look bleak.

    For India, having a Chinese puppet on their maritime shore is unacceptable, so they are prepared to negotiate. Even before the announcement of the upcoming visit, both Malé and New Delhi signaled a desire to improve ties. Last month, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar visited Malé, marking the first high-level visit since Muizzu was elected. Jaishankar’s visit was followed by consultations between the two countries on joint defense projects and security in the Indian Ocean this month. Muizzu’s upcoming visit signals a softening of his anti-India stance. Many political experts believe this is part of a broader effort to improve China-India relations and reduce China’s influence in the Indian Ocean as China focuses more on the South China Sea. Nonetheless, this represents a positive move from the Maldives.

  • Germany to Build Strategic Relationship in Central Asia

    Germany to Build Strategic Relationship in Central Asia

    Germany, having lost momentum in international politics and economics, is also joining the race for Central Asia’s abundant and untapped natural resources. Chancellor Olaf Scholz is currently visiting Central Asia, a region highly sought after by global powers – from the United States to Japan – for its rich mineral and natural gas reserves, now more accessible as Russian influence wanes. While the Germany-backed European Union is working to strengthen ties, Germany has its own interests, particularly in securing natural gas imports. The ban on Russian gas has severely impacted Germany, and continuing on this trajectory will further weaken its already struggling economy. Accessing Central Asia’s resources could help Germany regain its lost momentum and global standing. 

    During Scholz’s three-day visit, which included a bilateral meeting and the second Germany-Central Asia summit, the five Central Asian heads of state, now acting as a bloc, gathered in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, to meet with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and discuss expanding trade between the West and Central Asia. Although no specific deals were announced, the atmosphere was positive, with all parties expressing optimism for future agreements. Scholz emphasized that exchanges between Central Asia and Germany had never been closer and were steadily increasing.

    Central Asian leaders conveyed a clear message that mutual benefits would be essential for cooperation. Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the host of the meeting, reinforced this sentiment, noting that the exchange of views demonstrated a strong mutual interest in deepening ties. Tokayev provided a rough outline for future trade relations, indicating that Kazakhstan and other regional states were eager to assist Germany and the EU with energy needs. However, Central Asia expects more than just financial compensation in return for its energy exports.

    Describing Germany as a global leader in economic and technological innovation, Tokayev expressed that Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states aim to leverage German expertise to advance the localization of production and create high-value products. He highlighted several economic sectors that could benefit from German technology transfers, including finance, agriculture, transit logistics, and information technology. Tokayev also emphasized Kazakhstan’s interest in German expertise and investment to support Central Asia’s green energy initiatives. He specifically mentioned a collaborative project involving Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan to develop solar and wind power plants for exporting electricity to the EU. Tokayev subtly suggested that Germany consider participating in this strategic project. It seems that Central Asian countries are firm in their demands for compensation in exchange for their resources. For Germany, securing affordable gas is now a critical priority.

    Before visiting Kazakhstan, Scholz stopped in Uzbekistan, where his discussions in Samarkand with Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev were similarly governed by a mutual benefit approach. The main outcome was a politically strategic agreement allowing Germany to send potential Afghan migrants to Uzbekistan for eventual repatriation to Afghanistan. In return, Berlin agreed to accept skilled Uzbek workers to fill job vacancies in Germany. For Scholz, this agreement demonstrates that his beleaguered Social Democrat-led government is addressing domestic migration issues. Public dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of migration has eroded support for his coalition and was a significant factor in the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party’s strong performance in recent state elections.

    The deal is also a notable achievement for Mirziyoyev, whose administration aims to transition Uzbekistan’s economy from raw material production to finished goods manufacturing. As part of this economic transformation, the government is restructuring the labor market and labor migration policies to create more opportunities for skilled workers abroad. And If the Taliban agrees to accept Afghan nationals sent from Germany to Uzbekistan, it could showcase their ability to act as a responsible international actor, potentially supporting their efforts to legitimize their rule.

    In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its failure to meet its objectives, Central Asian states have gained greater confidence in their negotiations with other global actors. Alongside traditional partners like Russia and China, leading figures from the US, EU, Japan, South Korea, India, Turkey, and the Middle East are now engaging with Central Asia. They are discussing initiatives aimed at boosting the economies of both sides and influencing the region’s political landscape.

    If Germany successfully collaborates with Central Asia and begins importing natural gas from the region, it would represent a significant setback for Russia. Given Russia’s ongoing political influence in Central Asia, such a shift could lead to disruptions and political unrest. Other countries may seize this opportunity to advance their own interests. Thus, while new partnerships in Central Asia present both risks and opportunities, Germany stands to gain significant benefits from its involvement in the region.

  • What is happening in Lebanon?

    What is happening in Lebanon?

    Lebanon, the volatile home of Hezbollah, finds itself reeling from a bewildering series of explosions. Just a day after thousands of pagers detonated in unison across the country, a new wave of blasts from seemingly innocuous devices – walkie-talkies, laptops, radios – claimed the lives of 14 people, injuring 450 more. On Tuesday, the shocking detonations of pagers linked to Hezbollah members killed 12 and left nearly 3,000 injured, a grim spectacle that stunned not only Lebanon but the world, both in its method and its sheer scale of destruction. By Wednesday, reports of further explosions spread like wildfire across messaging apps, with disturbing images of shattered devices and smoldering buildings circulating rapidly, 

    As Lebanon teeters on the brink, already frayed by political dysfunction and administrative paralysis, it faces a new and bewildering crisis. The source of these devastating attacks remains shrouded in mystery, and citizens, now fearful of their own electronic devices, find themselves paralyzed in a country unable—or unwilling – to respond. While Israel has yet to officially claim responsibility, many cast accusatory glances in its direction. Civilians are increasingly caught in the crossfire, victims of what appears to be Israel’s widening focus on Hezbollah. Yet within Hezbollah itself, a disquieting confusion has surfaced, even as the group vows retribution. The ominous specter of a Hezbollah-Israel conflict hangs in the air, inching Lebanon ever closer to the precipice of war. Poor Lebanon, once again.

    Information is still emerging, but multiple explosions were reported on Wednesday afternoon in Beirut’s southern suburbs and the southern city of Tyre. Social media images showed vehicles ablaze and smoke billowing from residential areas, as reports of walkie-talkies and even solar cells exploding surfaced. Shockingly, blasts were reported at funerals as well. Chaos gripped the streets, with ambulances rushing to aid the injured and panic spreading as more explosions were reported. 

    There is growing fear among the public about how Israel might have executed such an operation, raising concerns over the involvement of vast global supply chains, stretching from Japan and Taiwan to Europe. Some suspect these supply chains may have been infiltrated, allowing devices to be equipped with small amounts of high-powered explosives – between 1 and 3 grams. Reports suggest that Hezbollah members suspect the blasts are linked to batteries, with several removing and discarding batteries from their radios after one exploded during a funeral in Beirut. While most affected devices appeared to be communication systems, there were also reports of other objects, like solar panels, causing explosions.

    Israel has neither claimed responsibility nor made any official comments regarding the explosions. However, investigations are underway by various parties, and international media has ramped up its coverage, saturating the digital sphere with the unfolding story. Both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government have pointed fingers at Israel for the attacks. Experts believe as Israel’s operations in Gaza approach their final stages, and they are moving to the next stage. Israel’s long-term strategy remains unclear, but these explosions represent a significant escalation against Hezbollah and Lebanon. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant announced on Wednesday that the army would redirect resources and forces from its nearly year long campaign in Gaza to the northern front.

    The attacks dealt a heavy blow to Hezbollah, not only operationally but also in terms of psychological warfare, raising questions about the group’s standing within Lebanon. As Israel wraps up its operations in Gaza, it now faces threats primarily from the north, particularly along its borders with Lebanon and Syria. In Syria, Israel holds an advantage due to its control over key strategic areas, but Lebanon presents a more complex risk. The recent explosions seem to signal Israel’s intent to pressure both Lebanese authorities and Hezbollah, demonstrating that no one is beyond its reach.

    Hezbollah has vowed revenge, but it must acknowledge that Israeli intelligence operates with a sophistication that may surpass its own capabilities. Despite this, Hezbollah faces a critical dilemma; the attacks have been a severe blow to its reputation, and failure to retaliate could undermine its very existence. As tensions rise, the Lebanese people should brace themselves for further hardship.

  • Will Pager explosions escalate tensions in the Middle East?

    Will Pager explosions escalate tensions in the Middle East?

    Lebanon was rocked by a series of explosions that seemed straight out of a Hollywood spy thriller, with pagers used in a meticulously coordinated attack targeting Hezbollah leaders and Iranian diplomats. While Israel has not publicly claimed responsibility, the precision and scale of the operation bear unmistakable signs of Mossad’s involvement. In what appears to be an intelligence-driven strike, thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah members were detonated simultaneously. Early reports indicate at least twelve deaths and around 3000 injuries across dozens, if not hundreds, of explosions. The attack highlights a relentless drive to strike at Hezbollah, which had adopted pagers as a less traceable communication tool, avoiding the location risks posed by mobile phones.

    Diplomats, netizens, and Iranian officials are certain of Israel’s involvement in these recent attacks, viewing them as part of Mossad’s ongoing campaign against high-profile targets. Initial reports indicate that the pagers, a new model possibly compromised during the supply chain process, were also intended for use in Europe – further evidence pointing to Israeli intelligence. Such tactics are not without precedent. In January 1996, a rigged mobile phone was used to assassinate Yahya Ayyash, Hamas’s chief bomb maker, in Gaza City. Since Israel’s renewed conflict with Hamas, efforts to eliminate militant leaders have intensified. In August, Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader, was killed by a short-range projectile in Tehran, prompting Iran to warn of direct military retaliation against Israel.

    As Israel’s war in Gaza approaches its second year, the conflict has expanded beyond Hamas to include the wider “Axis of Resistance”, which encompasses various Iran-backed militias. Bombings, missile strikes, and targeted attacks have become routine between these factions, with increasing clashes along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, home to the Iran-supported Hezbollah. While a full-scale regional war involving Arab nations, including Lebanon and Iran, seems unlikely, many experts believe the chances of a conflict like the previous Arab-Israeli wars are low. However, Israel’s intensified targeting of key leaders is becoming a major concern for the axis of resistance. The recent pager attack highlights Israel’s capabilities and the opposition’s vulnerability, leaving Hezbollah and others under pressure to restore their standing in the Islamic world. Failure to act could lead to an existential crisis for these groups, as their legitimacy is tied to their fight against Israel. Many predict a potential full-scale war between Hezbollah and Israel, with Hezbollah nearing a possible endgame. Israel’s demands for peace will not be met by eliminating Hamas alone, as Hezbollah continues to pose a similar threat from the north. The likelihood of war appears increasingly imminent, while international negotiations remain ineffective, with the U.S. downplaying the severity of the situation.

    If Israel’s involvement in recent events is confirmed, it would represent a major escalation. Further attacks in Lebanon seem likely, given Israel’s apparent determination to eradicate the threats it faces, potentially targeting Hezbollah as well. With Hezbollah pressured to respond, Israel appears ready for their counteractions. Additionally, Houthi forces and Syrian militants might also need to be cautious of Pagers.

  • Why Is Saudi Arabia Concerned About the Houthis Attack on Israel?

    Why Is Saudi Arabia Concerned About the Houthis Attack on Israel?

    Pro-Islamic and pro-Palestinian social media accounts across various platforms and countries are celebrating the Houthi militants claim of breaching Israel’s missile defense system and reaching central Israel, near Tel Aviv, with a modern ballistic missile. The reported strike on September 15th caused no casualties but captured headlines due to its strategic significance. A militant group from Yemen launched the missile over Saudi Arabia, breaching Israel’s renowned defense system and reaching the vicinity of Tel Aviv. For the Houthis, this was a notable achievement in their “Holy War”, one Israel likely did not anticipate. However, this development has heightened tensions in Saudi Arabia, the leading nation in the Islamic world and home to its most sacred sites. Saudi Arabia, already engaged in conflict with the Houthis, now faces an increasing security risk. The Houthis striking capabilities and resilience represent a significant threat to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

    Saudi Arabia, a Sunni-majority Islamic nation that supports Yemen’s official government in its battle against the Shia-majority Houthis, believes that Iran, a Shia power, has been supplying arms to the group and is convinced that the recent strikes were carried out with Iran’s assistance, despite the Houthis claiming they used homemade weapons. The Sunni-Shia conflict has deep historical roots, spanning centuries of violence and mutual hostility, much like the long-standing conflict between Muslims and Jews. Now, Saudi Arabia views the recent Houthi attacks as a growing threat to its own security. The Houthis advanced capabilities, including their weapons and technology, have surprised many observers. Additionally, the group’s involvement in attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea has significantly reduced traffic on this crucial route, leading to increased maritime transport costs and disruptions to the global economy by affecting the Suez Canal. Given these impacts, Saudi Arabia presented Houthis as not just a regional threat, but a global one. 

    In Sana’a, the capital of Yemen and a Houthi stronghold where the rebel group coordinates its attacks on shipping, the leadership celebrated Sunday’s missile strike on Israel, which landed in an open area near Ben Gurion International Airport. They hailed the strike as a breakthrough, attributing it to the efforts of Yemeni technicians, and vowed that more attacks would follow. Prior to the strike, the Houthis had issued warnings of an impending assault on Israel. Previous missile attacks by the group had failed to penetrate deep into Israeli airspace, with one missile in March landing in an open area near the Red Sea port of Eilat. In July, an Iranian-made drone attack on Tel Aviv killed one person and wounded ten others. During Sunday’s strike, Israel activated its Arrow and Iron Dome defense systems, though it remains unclear whether any of the interception attempts were successful.

    Saudi Arabia now faces an urgent need to take stronger action against the Houthis, as the threat they pose could be as significant to the kingdom as it is to Israel, if not greater. A potential attack on Saudi territory is a growing concern, especially given previous incidents. The kingdom also wants to prevent the Houthis from gaining further support and enhancing their reputation for bravery in the name of Islam. If the Houthis gain more support in Yemen, the Saudi-backed official government could be in jeopardy. However, before launching any strikes, Saudi Arabia is likely to seek U.S. approval, and more military operations are anticipated. Saudi leaders are calling for a more robust approach than mere pinprick bombings to effectively sever the Houthis supply lines.

    Saudi Arabia has also pointed to Iran’s interference in Arab nations such as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestine, expressing disappointment that Tehran has failed to uphold the diplomatic agreement it reached with Saudi Arabia in China two years ago. The kingdom had hoped Iran would take a more proactive role in fostering regional stability and resolving disputes, not just with Saudi Arabia but across the broader region. However, the escalating tensions are likely to exacerbate the Middle East crisis, potentially drawing in additional parties, including the U.S. and the U.K. The Houthis are likely to receive more support, and Saudi Arabia may bear higher costs than Israel in this situation.