Author: Caracal

  • The Debate Over Chiang Kai Shek Statues in Taiwan

    The Debate Over Chiang Kai Shek Statues in Taiwan

    There is a worldwide trend of erasing certain parts of history by removing statues and monuments. This phenomenon has been widely observed in Europe and America, where statues of slave traders have been taken down. Similarly, this trend has been evident in Eastern European states and former communist countries, where statues of communist leaders have been removed. Taiwan is poised to join this trend by accelerating the move to remove statues of former dictator Chiang Kai-shek. However, there is opposition to this initiative. Debates are raging about Chiang Kai-shek statues, who is widely regarded as the founder of Taiwan, despite his support for the One China policy.

    In 2018, when the DPP’s Tsai Ing-wen held the presidency, the government established a transitional justice committee to investigate the rule of the former generalissimo, who served as the president of the Republic of China (ROC) in both China and Taiwan until his death in 1975. Many people continue to view Chiang Kai-shek, the Kuomintang leader of China, as part of the Republic of China formed in Mainland China under Sun Yat-sen, for many, he is remembered as someone who fought for democracy against communism before being exiled to Taiwan and continuing the Republic of China from there, thereby giving Taiwan a separate identity. However, for many Taiwanese people, he is seen as a Chinese military dictator who ruled the islands for decades under strict martial law and then transferred power to his son, as like the communist regime in Korea. By the end of martial law implemented by Chiang Kai-shek in 1987, as many as 140,000 people were estimated to have been imprisoned and another 3,000 to 4,000 executed for actual or perceived opposition to his party. Many argue that the island lost its identity and became a home of the Chinese exiled government, he was advocating for a One China policy that Taiwan doesn’t agree with. Chiang Kai-shek’s legacy remains a point of contentious debate, though the Justice Committee’s recommendation was to remove thousands of Chiang Kai-shek’s statues from public spaces.

    Taiwan’s government has pledged to accelerate its efforts in response to calls for the removal of statues of Chiang Kai-shek.  This pledge was made in response to criticism that the government was not moving quickly enough.  Taiwan is adorned with statues of Chiang, and for years, the government and society have been engaged in debate over what to do with them, particularly the largest one inside Taipei’s Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. Many statues have already been relocated, often to a park in northern Taipei, which has become famous for the thousands of Chiang likenesses arranged around its grounds. Indeed, Chiang Kai-shek strengthened Taiwan and prevented it from being invaded by the People’s Republic of China or Communist China. Chiang established defense training academies in Taiwan. Some in Taiwan argue that his legacy must be considered alongside his successes, pointing out that he also spearheaded Taiwan’s path to economic prosperity, and fought against both the Communists and the Japanese. The continued presence of the KMT as a major political party is seen as evidence of the people’s forgiveness toward Chiang.

    Chiang Kai Shek’s legacy has long been a point of political contention in Taiwan. The discourse surrounding Chiang’s legacy is predominantly split along party lines, as the ruling Democratic Progressive Party advocates for discontinuing ongoing tributes, while the opposition Kuomintang Party accuses them of attempting to erase history. However, the DPP has encountered allegations of seeking to “de-sinicize” Taiwan by advocating for the cessation of Chiang’s memorialization. The party maintains a pro-Taiwan sovereignty stance, in contrast to the KMT’s ongoing embrace of Taiwan’s historical and cultural connections with China. Additionally, the KMT has voiced opposition to the transitional justice commission and its unfavorable findings against the party. The issue is now more political, and it will not be easy for the government to take actions faster. However, by removing Chiang Kai Shek statues, Taiwan is not only erasing the memories of the bad days under military rule but also severing ties with China. In the process, Taiwan will develop a distinct identity and history.

  • Can Rahul Gandhi Bring Back the Era of Caste Politics in India?

    Can Rahul Gandhi Bring Back the Era of Caste Politics in India?

    Castes, the subdivisions in Hindu society, have always been a political tool in India. People have voted for leaders from their caste, and caste-based politics, or caste politics, became prominent in Indian politics. More than development and basic infrastructure, people love leaders and parties that speak for their caste. In a country where marriages are arranged based on caste, caste-based voting is quite understandable. However, in recent years, under Modi’s regime, caste politics is facing tough challenges. Modi’s religious politics successfully blanketed caste politics; he brought all Hindu castes under an umbrella and called for Hindu unity, causing a significant setback for Indian opposition parties, which lost their conventional voting patterns. In response, opposition parties are protesting against religious politics and now calling for the return of caste politics. Rahul Gandhi, the prominent leader of the opposition party, repeated calls for a caste census, considered a significant move to bring back caste politics in India.

    Since independence, castes have been a factor in Indian elections, although their impact was not visible in initial elections due to sentiments lingering from the Indian independence movement and the animosity directed against Muslims from the Partition. However, there have been voices raised against the neglect of backward castes. Higher castes, such as Brahmins, have traditionally held positions in higher levels of administration, while backward castes, which are more numerous, have historically been sidelined and severely disadvantaged due to educational and economic backwardness. Dr. Ambedkar, a renowned Dalit leader in India, voiced concern about this situation and advocated for the reservation system to benefit the most backward classes, commonly known as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. However, the system has failed to sufficiently meet the needs of the of backward castes. Consequently, politics based on caste empowerment slowly commenced in the Indian political sphere. Several leaders have emerged as caste advocates, and several parties have been formed to represent different castes.

    The Indian National Congress, now voicing for caste politics, was initially against it and used religious politics to suppress the rise of caste politics. However, caste-based mobilization and communities have become common. The Mandal Commission report, which emerged after extensive protests, shook the Indian political sphere. Movements like government job reservations, where government jobs are highly prestigious, shook the nation and led to the rise of caste-based political parties such as the Bahujan Samaj Party, Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, and Lok Dal. The Bahujan Samaj Party, aimed at empowering backward castes, became a national-level party, marking the peak of caste politics while religious politics suffered. 

    However, corruption, greedy leaders, and dynasty politics resulted in the diminishing influence of caste-based political parties in later years. When Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, caste politics was undergoing a reduction in significance. The Bharatiya Janata Party, advocating Hindu nationalism and often expressing animosity towards Muslims, successfully united all castes and formed a massive Hindu vote bank. They appointed a Scheduled Caste and a Scheduled Tribe person to the country’s most respected position, the Indian presidency. Through this action, Ram Nath Kovind, a Scheduled Caste individual, and Draupati Murmu, the incumbent president from a Scheduled Tribe, assumed the presidential role, while Narendra Modi himself is from a backward community. They effectively reshaped the political landscape into Hindu nationalists versus Anti-Hindus. Opposition parties, including the Indian National Congress, are accused by the BJP of being sentimentally inclined towards Muslims.

    As Narendra Modi is seeking a third term, the opposition has begun addressing the strategy adopted by the BJP and is ready to undermine Hindu unity or religious politics and bring back caste politics. The Indian National Congress, once damaged by caste politics, is now the front-runner advocate for caste politics because they know it’s the only way to counter Narendra Modi’s dominance. They have started working on this strategy. Rahul Gandhi, the most influential leader in Indian politics after Narendra Modi, frequently advocates for a caste census. The caste census is a tool to determine the number of people in various castes and their economic and social status. Many expect that conducting a caste census will evoke a situation similar to that after the implementation of the Mandal Commission report, where people will vote according to their caste sentiment rather than religious interests, potentially splitting the Hindu vote bank created by the BJP. This could revive caste-based political parties that are now in alliance with the Indian National Congress. Therefore, the Opposition alliance and the Indian National Congress are actively promoting the caste census, repeatedly mentioning it in different rallies and including it in their election manifesto.

    Caste politics was once believed to improve the living conditions of backward castes and untouchables -But it doesn’t. Leaders of caste politics parties and their relatives became wealthier and more influential, but this did not benefit the common people, who still suffer from poverty and social backwardness. Caste politics has drawn criticism for worsening the state of people, with all caste-based political parties being highly corrupted and facing serious accusations, with some even in jail. Rahul Gandhi aims to introduce a caste census only for political purposes. But if the opposition wins, by campaigning for caste census, it may mark the return of caste politics in India.

  • Pro-China Party Emerges Victorious In Maldives Parliament Election

    Pro-China Party Emerges Victorious In Maldives Parliament Election

    The Maldives is drifting away from India. Following the Maldives parliamentary election held on April 21st, the pro-China party, People’s National Congress (PNC), emerged victorious. President Muizzu’s PNC’s win garnered significant attention due to its strong ties with China, which coincide with its expressed hostility towards India. The People’s National Congress (PNC) secured 66 out of the first 86 seats declared by the Elections Commission of Maldives, exceeding the threshold for a super-majority in the 93-member parliament. The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), which had aimed to obstruct efforts to reshape Maldivian diplomacy, faced a substantial setback after its previous landslide victory in the 2019 elections. The outcome was seen as a validation of Muizzu’s push for strengthened collaboration with China.

    Maldives, an archipelago nation made up of approximately 1,192 small coral islands spanning 800 kilometers near the equator, stands as one of the nations most susceptible to rising sea levels due to global warming. Despite its vulnerability, this premier luxury destination finds itself at the center of significant geopolitical tensions. China’s extensive investment in various infrastructure projects such as land reclamation, apartment complexes, and bridges has led to a notable shift in the country’s allegiance towards China. Although the Maldives lacks historical ties to China, the populace has increasingly embraced Chinese influence due to the economic and emotional advantages derived from these investments. China’s strategic move in the Indian Ocean, along with its significant financing of infrastructure initiatives in countries surrounding India, is being viewed as a potential strategy to ensnare smaller states in debt and exert influence as proxies for China. India is concerned that China may exploit the strategic positioning of the Maldives, Which is close to Indian shores. Historically, the Maldives enjoyed a close relationship with India, benefiting from historical ties and Indian assistance in safeguarding its sovereignty, including thwarting an invasion attempt by Sri Lanka. However, under President Muizzu’s tenure, there has been a notable shift away from India, evidenced by politicians, including members of the government, openly ridiculing Indian Prime Minister Modi and India. Tensions heightened when the Maldives chose to remove Indian military personnel deployed under an agreement. And also President Muizzu refrained from ceremonial visits to India, instead favoring engagements with Turkey and China. These events sparked campaigns against the Maldives in India, leading to a notable economic downturn for Maldives.

    In the midst of heightened geopolitical tensions, the resounding victory of Muizzu’s party reflects the prevailing sentiment within the state. Muizzu himself emerged triumphant in last September’s presidential election, representing the interests of the pro-China former president Abdulla Yameen, who was recently released following the overturning of his 11-year corruption conviction by the court. Before this parliamentary election, Muizzu’s People’s National Congress (PNC) and its allies held only eight seats in parliament, limiting Muizzu’s capacity to implement his agenda post his presidential victory. However, as campaigning for the parliamentary elections intensified this month, Muizzu strategically awarded significant infrastructure contracts to Chinese state-owned enterprises. Meanwhile, the principal opposition party, the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), which had previously held a super-majority, suffered a humiliating defeat, securing just a dozen seats. Additionally, independents secured 11 seats in the parliament.

    Despite the concerns raised by ecologists and climate activists about the future of the island nation, which stands among the first countries significantly affected by climate change, it seems that both the populace and politicians are not prioritizing it as they should. This sentiment is reflected in the election results, with Muizzu, the former construction minister, planning to pursue further apartment construction, land reclamation, and other large-scale projects that strain the capacity of the fragile coral islands. The political landscape is heavily influenced by Islamism, with foreign affairs failing to adequately address the realities of climate change. However, this victory is a green flag for Muizzu and China.

  • Assessing the Israel-Iran War Fear: Perspectives and Predictions

    Assessing the Israel-Iran War Fear: Perspectives and Predictions

    The focal point of the Middle East conflict currently lies between two nations: Israel and Iran. Egypt is no longer an Arab superpower, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia show no interest in engaging in conflict with Israel. Other countries in the region lack the capability to challenge Israel. The only remaining powerhouse opposing Israel is Iran. Interestingly, Iran also lacks good terms with the United States. As animosity between Israel and Iran escalates, along with their leaders’ cries and calls for revenge, the world fears that war will break out. These countries have been embroiled in tensions for years, targeting each other’s officials. Iran funds and supports terrorist organizations, including Hamas, posing a threat to Israel. In response, Israel targets Iran’s top leaders, heightening tensions. The attack on Iran’s embassy in Syria further escalated tensions between the two countries. Subsequently, Iran launched around 300 drones and missiles at Israel, prompting Israel to retaliate with missile strikes targeting Isfahan, an important city for Iran. The breaking news alerts that followed stirred global apprehension, with people worldwide fearing that the region had taken a step closer to full-blown conflict.

    In Reality, no one will benefit from a catastrophic war at present. These countries possess a significant amount of artillery, and Israel possesses nuclear weapons, while Iran is accused of having nuclear bombs and high-impact weaponry. The war would be disastrous for the entire region. After World War II, there haven’t been collisions between major powers; instead, there have been instances of larger countries invading smaller ones, as observed in attacks like those on Ukraine or Gaza. Israel’s attack on Gaza is driven by a desire for revenge and is highly politically motivated, and they don’t need a full-scale war. If they were to attack Iran, there would be consequences, potentially involving the intervention of Iran’s closest allies, such as Russia and China. However, Israel is under intense pressure from its closest allies to restrain any response. Leaders from Washington, Paris, and London have openly expressed deep concern over the rapid escalation of a decades-long shadow war into a precarious exchange of direct strikes. For months, US diplomats have been engaged in intensive efforts to prevent Israel’s conflict in Gaza from expanding into a wider conflict, shuttling between regional capitals.

    Though Iran and Israel initiated a drone shower against each other, it occurred on a small scale, merely considered as threats. The direct confrontation began with Israel’s attack on the embassy of Iran, resulting in the deaths of top diplomats. In retaliation, Iran struck Israel using drones. The US received information from Iran before they attacked Israel, which significantly reduced fatalities. Although the scale of the Iran attack was surprising, analysts noted that Iran exhibited some restraint by warning the US. If it deployed its weapons differently, it could cause more harm. As the conflict continues, Israel conducted an attack with missiles in the Iranian city of Isfahan. Isfahan is a historic cultural center and a military hub, hosting several important facilities, including a major airbase and factories linked to drone production and a uranium enrichment plant.

    Tehran had issued a warning that any Israeli counterattack would provoke a stronger retaliation, with President Ebrahim Raisi stating on Wednesday that even the slightest strike would elicit a “Massive and harsh” response. Within hours, the US confirmed the attack as an Israeli strike and reiterated its longstanding call for restraint. The US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken said that they are committed to Israel’s security and they are also committed to de-escalation”. By Friday night, officials in Iran and Israel had merely stated that multiple drones had been shot down; neither country had admitted who had authorized the strike. However, Iran and Israel appear to have cooled down now. Some speculate that the uneasy pact of silence offered the only slim hope that the latest round of dangerous attacks might have temporarily ceased.

    Actually, these attacks between these countries are demanded by their administrations, which face protests from their people. For the Islamic Republic of Iran, they can present that they are only voicing support for Islam and Palestine. This is important because the country faces backlash from the population about stringent Islamic rules. So it is necessary for them to present a stance against Israel, although they know they are not capable of a full-scale war against Israel. If the war continues, it’s not certain that Russia and China will not cooperate with them, because Russia does not want to fight with Israel and China gives importance to its economy; they would face pressure from the China Sea if they entered into war. Therefore, the political stalemate once again spared the world. It appears that the likelihood of a full-scale war is nonexistent.

  • How to Understand the United States Military Exercises in China Seas

    How to Understand the United States Military Exercises in China Seas

    The world is once again experiencing a gradual polarization, yet unlike the past century, the shift is not unfolding primarily in Europe; rather, it is unfolding in Asia. Washington and Beijing have emerged as two major power centers, increasingly prioritizing their relationships with Asian countries. Military exercises are on the rise, with the United States continuously conducting such drills in waters surrounding China. These military exercises may form part of a multi-year training plan, such as those jointly established by defense authorities like the drills involving the US, Korea, and Japan. Some Military exercises are conducted annually, like those carried out by the United States and the Philippines, but they all contribute to escalating tensions in the region. The choice of locations and the actions within these drills exhibit heightened aggression, collectively sending a clear message to Beijing. Furthermore, China, Russia, and North Korea are actively preparing to counter US influence in the region.

    In recent days, the South Korean navy conducted joint naval drills with the United States and Japan in international waters south of Jeju Island, an island located in close proximity to China. The aim of these military drills was to improve joint operability against the nuclear and missile threats presented by North Korea. The military exercise comprised six warships, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier, three Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers, and two Aegis destroyers from South Korea and Japan. The primary emphasis of the military exercise lay in anti-submarine warfare training and improving responsiveness to North Korean underwater threats, including submarines and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Moreover, the three nations engaged in maritime interception training to curb the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction, alongside conducting search and rescue exercises.

    Since the Camp David summit in August, Washington has been strengthening military alliances with Seoul and Tokyo, stressing the importance of “Regularizing defensive exercises” to enhance trilateral responses to North Korean threats. The recent joint military drill follows naval exercises in January, during which a US aircraft carrier was similarly positioned south of Jeju in the East China Sea. While these trilateral naval exercises primarily aim to address North Korean threats, both Beijing and Moscow are closely monitoring the deepening military cooperation among the three allies. The area south of Jeju Island in the East China Sea holds strategic importance for China, as its navy must navigate near the island and the Japanese archipelago to access the Pacific Ocean. From the perspective of the United States, the southern part of Jeju serves as a strategic vantage point for monitoring North Korea, but its geopolitical significance also positions it as a potential means of checking China’s influence. From China’s viewpoint, the North Korean nuclear issue is not new, and the joint training exercises conducted by the three countries signify an attempt to assert influence and limit China’s regional aspirations. From Russia’s view, Vladivostok is situated closer to Jeju Island in the East China Sea than Moscow. 

    Military exercises in the South China Sea are also on the rise. China conducted military “Combat Patrols” in the disputed region, as confirmed by its army. This activity coincided with joint military drills conducted by the Philippines, the United States, Japan, and Australia. Moreover, next week will witness extensive naval drills between the Philippines and the US, occurring amid escalating tensions in the South China Sea. With preparations underway, the possibility of military confrontations from the Chinese side cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the United States and its allies currently maintain clear dominance over the waters, as evidenced by their repeated naval exercises. China and its partners are shown their combined power and preparedness through these military drills.

  • Is Armenia’s Defense Strategy Changing with US Military Aid?

    Is Armenia’s Defense Strategy Changing with US Military Aid?

    Armenia was humiliated when Azerbaijan captured the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which had long been under the rule of Armenian Christians. It’s a historical rivalry between these former Soviet republics, but this time Armenia’s anger at the loss in the war was directed towards their Christian brother Russia, which provided military, economic, and political assistance to Armenia but considered staying neutral or allowing the takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan. The Armenian government accepted defeat and chose not to make comments against it, despite some protests and anger towards Russia. There was a general perception in Yerevan that the Kremlin had not lived up to its security obligations to Armenia. However, people with deep ties to Russia or those in geopolitically isolated situations refrained from making further protests against Russia.

    But Armenians are not only in Modern Armenia; they have a larger population in the United States and Western countries than in Armenia itself. They are angry. They believe Russia preferred richer Azerbaijan and strategically important Turkey and their interests over Armenia. They believe it’s time to shift their allegiance from Russia to the West. And when Russia weakens or is perceived as weak, Armenian politicians are removing the redline they aspire to join in Europe, and they have won some impressive military assistance from the Eagle, the United States.

    The European Union and the United States swiftly responded to Armenian overtures for closer security and economic ties. In early April, they jointly proposed an assistance package totaling over $350 million for Yerevan. Following this initiative, US Ambassador to Armenia Kristina Kvien stated that the relationship between the US and Armenia is expanding. She noted that Washington’s engagement with Yerevan has broadened and deepened across various sectors over the past year, including military cooperation. Kvien highlighted significant developments in this area, such as the joint US-Armenian military exercises held in early September in Armenia. Additionally, she mentioned plans for an American military advisor to collaborate with the Armenian Defense Ministry to implement reforms aimed at enhancing planning and operational standards to modern levels. This is enough to consider Europe’s interest is expanding to Armenia and the Russosphere is shrinking and Armenia leading to deep trouble. Ukraine’s desire to join NATO is perceived as motivation for Russia’s war on the nation. 

    Though Ambassador Kvien echoed they don’t have plans to disrespect Relationship with Russia , emphasizing that US assistance to Armenia does not come with a condition to sever ties with Russia. She highlighted the importance of having multiple allies and trade partners for Armenia’s strength and resilience, stating that diversification, rather than exclusion, is the goal. However, it’s evident that if Armenia strengthens its ties with the United States or Europe, it could strain its relationship with Russia, given the historical tensions between these countries. And Russia is already concerned about the United States growing interest in the former soviet republics. Russia and Azerbaijan responded strongly to the EU-US aid package announced on April 5th for Armenia. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed concerns in the Armenian parliament by emphasizing increased economic and security cooperation with the West.

    The possibility that the United States was going to provide significant military support to Armenia seemed unthinkable just a few years ago. However, situations have changed, and Washington is moving cautiously in its efforts to remove a geopolitical red line in the Caucasus, painted by the Soviet Union. While Russia and Iran will likely face increased confrontation with the expanding Eurosphere in the Caucasus, the region will become more unstable. The two spheres are evolving in this tiny region, with Georgia, Armenia, and Europe on one side, and Russia, Iran, and Azerbaijan on the other side. Turkey’s involvement will only add complexity to the situation.

  • Who is Provoking Whom? US and Philippines Plan Military Drills in Disputed Waters

    Who is Provoking Whom? US and Philippines Plan Military Drills in Disputed Waters

    While western Asia is gripped by the fear of war, with Israel and Iran launching attacks against each other, Philippine and US forces will carry out their first-ever military exercises along the edge of South China Sea waters, outside their territorial waters. This action is poised to provoke China and deepen the crisis in the South China Sea and East Asia. Even though there is no issue with conducting military drills in international waters, and the Philippines and the US being long-time allies, it will undoubtedly represent a significant setback for China, a nation asserting claims over the South China Sea and striving to control regional politics. While it may resemble high school bullying, it underscores the imperative for countries to steer clear of further conflicts, as people suffer from the effects of ongoing wars.

    The annual military drills, known as Balikatan or “Shoulder-to-Shoulder” drills, are scheduled to take place from April 22nd to May 10th this year, with the participation of 16,700 soldiers. The program involves simulations of retaking enemy-occupied islands in areas facing Taiwan and the South China Sea, potentially sending a message to China. This year’s military drills are notable for the inclusion of the Philippine Coast Guard for the first time, reflecting their increasing involvement in confrontations with China, where they have previously faced humiliation from the Chinese navy in incidents involving water cannons.

    China appears to be paying close attention to this issue. Beijing continues to claim almost every inch of the South China Sea, citing historical and cultural ties to the region, despite an international tribunal’s 2016 ruling that Beijing’s expansive claims lacked legal legitimacy. Their unwavering position is supported by the strategic importance of the South China Sea to China’s political and economic hegemony. China’s aggressive actions against Philippine vessels prompted the Philippines and the US, its strongest ally, to decide to conduct the drill in the disputed waters.  The Chinese foreign ministry issued a warning, stating that the Philippines should be “Sober enough to realize” that inviting other nations to demonstrate their military  might in the South China Sea and provoke conflict will only heighten tensions and jeopardize stability in the region. China opposes the involvement of the United States and Japan in the South China Sea issue. During a scheduled press conference, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian stressed that “Attempts to enlist external forces to safeguard its purported security will only result in greater insecurity for itself”, urging both countries to refrain from provocations. Chinese official media also warned that such actions would have a “Destructive impact on regional security”.

    The foreign ministry of the Philippines asserted that China should “Reflect upon its own actions” in the South China Sea, stating that the country’s decision to strengthen ties with the US and Japan was a “Sovereign choice”. The ministry emphasized in a statement that “The source of tension in our region is well known to all”, linking the escalation of tensions in the region to China’s aggressive behavior and excessive maritime claims, including the militarization of disputed islands. China and the Philippines have had multiple clashes, thankfully avoiding direct war like those seen in West Asia, given the unstable political climate in the region. However, there are concerns that this area would be among the first to see war  if the world order continues to collapse.

    The joint military drills are commonly conducted to improve communication between militaries, and this will feature bolstered support from the United States to the Philippines. Amid growing tensions with Beijing, Joe Biden promised last week to protect the Philippines from any attacks in the South China Sea during the first-ever joint summit with Manila and Tokyo. Currently, approximately 14 countries will observe the annual practice, including Japan, India, and countries from ASEAN and the EU. The military drills are going to showcase the readiness of the team to oppose China.

  • The Politics of Opinion Polls: Can We Rely on Indian Opinion Polls?

    The Politics of Opinion Polls: Can We Rely on Indian Opinion Polls?

    The mammoth Indian general election, unfolding across multiple phases starting on April 19th. anticipates the participation of over 96 million voters throughout its seven phases spanning two months. Results are slated for release on June 4th, marking nearly 50 days since the inauguration of the first polling phase. As India asserts itself as a global force in both economic and political spheres, the Indian election gains paramount importance internationally. Supporters of democracy closely scrutinize the intricate electoral processes, applauding Indian authorities for effectively engaging such a vast electorate. Nevertheless, numerous analysts voice concerns over potential flaws in the democratic system. The prevalence of smartphones among the populace, often outweighing educational resources, exacerbates susceptibility to misinformation and paid propaganda. From television to cinema, there is a considerable propaganda drive aimed at shaping the mood of the nation, often overshadowing real issues. Opinion polls are one of the tools used in Indian elections, often tailored to specific interests and potentially influencing the collective mood of the nation. In a country like India, celebrated for its mob mentality, opinion polls are considered to have a significant impact.

    Opinion polls have been a fixture in elections worldwide for many years, utilized by political parties and the press in various democracies such as France and the United States for centuries. Over time, they have developed foolproof sampling, leveraging technology to minimize inaccuracies. Nonetheless, from the outset, many have raised objections to opinion polls, questioning their reliability and their influence on voters and politicians. Several countries have implemented regulations governing opinion polls, and allegations of biased funding against certain well-known polling agencies have undermined their credibility, leading to doubts about their impartiality. As opinion polls stir considerable tumult in the Western world, India, the largest democracy, has only recently adopted this trend in the 21st century. While some press and agencies had conducted opinion polls previously, they did not gain much popularity. However, the proliferation of television and rivalry between television channels propelled opinion polls into prominence in India. Initially confined to major cities, India’s opinion polls expanded through technological advancements and substantial funding. Indeed, opinion polling has burgeoned into one of the most lucrative industries in India, with television channels, the press, and YouTube channels vying for the services of surveying agencies or establishing their own survey teams.

    Opinion polls in India have peaked in the last 10 years, with many inaccuracies regarding the winners of constituencies and completely wrong predictions at the state level, although at the national level, most opinion polls predicted the general mood. However, questions persist about the sampling methods and the impact of opinion polls on Indian people. The population is highly diverse, encompassing various ethnicities, religions, views, and languages, and individuals often feel ashamed, fearful, or dishonest about revealing their voting preferences. Despite education levels, factors such as family influence, caste dynamics, mob mentality, and celebrity endorsements heavily shape voter mentality. Additionally, millions of people may never encounter any opinion poll.

    Though The result of opinion polls have become celebrated in the television and social media. In this context, Indian opposition parties accuse Indian opinion polls of being highly corrupted and influenced by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and business interests. They claim that television channels and major agencies, currently funded by BJP-linked business entities, propagate the notion that the opposition is weak and that Modi will secure most seats. This creates a “Bandwagon Effect”, prompting voters to support the candidate perceived to be winning in the polls. Those familiar with the parliamentary system tend to favor the party projected to win, making it a potent election strategy. The river of Opinion polls  from the past year predicting Modi’s third term and the humiliation of the opposition are likely to influence public opinion.

    According to the findings of numerous television, print, and YouTube channels engaged in conducting surveys, many of which boast considerable sample sizes of up to 200,000, all indicate that the BJP is likely to emerge victorious. Despite the Election Commission’s mandate prohibiting opinion polls within 48 hours before polling commences, the released results have already shaped a favorable narrative for the BJP. Voters are primarily interested in electing members from the party projected to govern the state, or they prefer candidates aligned with the ruling party over those going to sit in the opposition bloc. Thus, opinion polls are poised to have a significant impact on the outcome of the Indian general election.

  • How The New Foreign Agents Bill Affects Georgia’s European Dreams

    How The New Foreign Agents Bill Affects Georgia’s European Dreams

    Georgia, a southern Caucasian country geographically located at the crossroads of Asia and Europe, is one of the latest candidate members of the European Union. The country, which was long under the Soviet Union and is the birthplace of the famous Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, is now joining the pro-Europe movement in Eastern Europe. Georgia suffered humiliation during the war against Russia in 2008, resulting in the loss of territory, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Doubt among people towards Russia is further exacerbated in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Armenia’s humiliation in the war with Azerbaijan. From the protests in support of Ukraine to the recent celebration of Euro qualification, events have served as venues for pro-European sentiment. However, the government of Georgia and several prominent leaders are not willing to break away from their Soviet and pro-Russian past. The Georgian parliament recently passed a new Foreign Agents bill that highly resembles or mirrors Russia’s democratic bill aimed at restricting people from accessing information. During the Soviet era, this was one way of keeping knowledge under government control. But, of course, this has dealt a significant blow to this West Asian nation’s path to the European Union.

    Georgian lawmakers’ passing of a controversial Foreign agents bill, igniting fresh street protests. The ruling Georgian Dream party, which has a majority in the parliament ,voted 78 to 25 to advance the draft of Foreign Agents bill for further debate. Thousands of people gathered in front of the Georgian parliament building in Tbilisi, causing traffic disruptions on the capital city’s main road. Opposition to the legislation wasn’t confined to the streets; even the country’s president spoke out against it. Georgia’s president, Salome Zurabishvili, who is at odds with the ruling party, condemned the move as “Against the will of the population”. The proposed law, if adopted, would require any independent media outlet or NGO receiving more than 20 percent of its financing from abroad to register as an “Organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power”. This represents a departure from last year’s bill, which used the term “Agent of foreign influence”. Following widespread protests last year, the ruling party was compelled to rescind the similar bill.

    The law contradicts the democratic reforms that the EU asserts Tbilisi must enact to progress on its path to EU membership. The EU has previously implored Tbilisi not to proceed with the Foreign agents bill. “The draft law on transparency of foreign influence is not aligned with Georgia’s EU aspirations and its accession trajectory”, remarked European Council President Charles Michel on Tuesday, echoing Brussels’ criticism of the bill. Furthermore, he emphasized that instead of bringing Georgia closer to the EU, the draft bill would distance it. He continued to express that the rights to freedom of expression and association would be directly threatened by the new law. Last December, the EU granted Georgia official candidate status but stipulated that Tbilisi must reform its judicial and electoral systems, diminish political polarization, enhance press freedom, and limit the influence of oligarchs before membership negotiations can commence formally. But it looks like Georgia is working against the directions.

    Opposition parties and civil society activists argue that the mechanism for this takeover is being facilitated by Georgia’s ruling party, Georgian Dream. Despite ostensibly seeking EU membership, the party is seen to be aligning more closely with Moscow. Video footage was trending in which the head of the parliamentary group of the ruling Georgian Dream party and a major supporter of the Foreign Agents Bill,  was punched in the face by opposition MP Aleko Elisashvili while delivering a speech from the dispatch box. Leading players in Georgia’s national men’s football team, the new national heroes, have also voiced their support from the public. They have backed mass protests sparked by a Foreign agents bill criticized for mirroring a repressive Russian law. They wrote: “Georgia’s path is to Europe. The European way unites us!! Forward to Europe!! Peace to Georgia” .

    Georgia, which was formerly regarded as spearheading the democratic transition among the former Soviet states, has come under fire recently for what is thought to be a democratic regression. This further adds to the doubts for the leaders of Georgia, as they risk their dreams of joining the euro by pushing for Russian-type laws. In addition to losing territory, they are maintaining friendlier relations with Russia. As a former Soviet republic, Georgia has sought for years to deepen relations with the West, but the current ruling party is accused of attempting to steer the Black Sea nation towards closer ties with Russia.

  • Israel’s Mission to Remove Any Scope of Palestine

    Israel’s Mission to Remove Any Scope of Palestine

    Everyone knows that the two-state solution is the most plausible resolution generated in the longstanding conflict between Israel and Arab countries. Israel, a Jewish nation, and Palestine, a Muslim nation, encompass Israel-captured territories, namely the West Bank and Gaza. However, these plans faced rejection due to disapproval from both Arab society and Israel. Israel desires to retain all the land it currently occupies, while Palestine seeks the removal of Jews from their land. 

    Long before the establishment of a Jewish state on the British-controlled eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, the notion of a State of Palestine for Muslims existed. The British Peel Commission report of 1937 initially proposed separate Jewish and Arab states within the territory. Subsequently, in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a partition plan for Palestine, though Arabs resisted partition. Since the 1982 Arab Summit, the leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a prominent organization of Palestine, has, in principle, accepted the idea of a two-state solution. Despite momentum from the Oslo Accord towards mutual recognition, it ultimately collapsed. Other organizations for Palestine like Hamas did not agree with the PLO.

    Right-wing governments of Israel, including Netanyahu’s, proceeded to establish large settlements in the West Bank, an area designated for Palestine by the international community. Netanyahu employed a strategy of expansion into East Jerusalem and the West Bank to gain an advantage in elections, a plan reportedly continuing according to the latest reports. Nevertheless, most international countries recognize the West Bank and Gaza as part of Palestine. Many political experts argue that Israel’s mission to expand into these territories is undermining the prospects for Palestine in recent years, contravening international law, which prohibits the permanent settlement of territories occupied militarily.

    Amidst the ongoing conflict between Hamas in Gaza, Israel is not slowing down but extending its construction efforts and building more Jewish settlements in the West Bank. This exacerbates the complexity of border division between Muslims and Jews. As more land falls into the hands of Jews, the Islamic character of the region is also diminishing. These actions, conducted without regard for international agreements, are perceived as part of Israel’s mission to control more Palestinian land, with Hamas attacks providing justification for such moves.

    According to a report by The Guardian, Israel’s government has significantly increased the construction of settlements across East Jerusalem. Planning documents as part of Israel’s mission on the West bank, reveal that over 20 projects, totaling thousands of housing units, have been approved or advanced since the onset of the conflict in Gaza six months ago. Ministries and government offices, often in collaboration with right-wing nationalist groups known for attempting to displace Palestinians from their homes, are spearheading the largest and most contentious projects. Israeli planning authorities have sanctioned two new settlements since the conflict began, marking the first approvals in East Jerusalem in over a decade. Additionally, the expansion of a high-security settlement named Kidmat Zion, situated in the heart of the Palestinian neighborhood Ras al-Amud on the city’s eastern fringe, is pending public feedback. Israel’s mission on the Westbank detailed in the report.

    Israel has initiated a plan for Gaza as well. There are influential business-politicians who recognize the strategic value of the seafront area. They have already devised a plan envisioning a future phase where Hamas no longer controls Gaza, ensuring security for Israeli citizens. Instead, other Palestinian entities would assume governance of the territory. Israel would retain the right to operate within Gaza, akin to the current arrangements in the occupied West Bank. This move underscores Israel’s mission to annex more areas in the West Bank and Gaza, thereby diminishing the scope for Palestine. International bodies that fail to broker a ceasefire in Gaza find themselves limited in their ability to intervene. Arab leaders who reject the two-state solution are facing repercussions for their stance. Ironically, the expectation held by former Arab leaders that Palestine would be established by driving out Jews and Israel from the country is being reversed. Israel is increasingly being established by driving out Arabs.