Tag: US

  • Biden Pushes for Ceasefire in Gaza

    Biden Pushes for Ceasefire in Gaza

    Israel’s war on Gaza is continuing without an end in sight. More than a war, it’s easy to describe it as Israel’s rage against Hamas for killing their citizens and taking their people as hostages, affecting the civilians of Gaza. It’s emotional, sentimental, and religious. The world is split, with protests occurring from New York to Australia, and social media filled with hate comments. Several movements advocate for a truce, but Israel is determined to achieve complete control over Gaza and demolish Hamas from their territory. However, protests are also fuming in Israel, coupled with the prolonged war and fear about hostages, along with demands for post-war plans from the coalition government, creating disturbances for Israel.

    In the latest development, the US is now working seriously towards a ceasefire in Gaza, as it faces humiliation due to its weakened power over Israel and its commitment to human rights. With the US elections six months away, many expect that Biden will lose votes due to poor performance on the Israel issue, with Democrats anticipating a loss of support from Arab Americans and young voters. This is troubling for Biden, and they are finally making some reliable moves for a ceasefire in Gaza.

    During a news conference at the White House on Friday afternoon, President Biden stated that Israel has put forward a comprehensive new proposal to end the war, which serves as a roadmap to an enduring ceasefire. Israel has agreed to a proposal that would lead to a lasting ceasefire in Gaza. Biden explained that the proposal involves three phases extending over months. The first phase would last six weeks and include a full and complete ceasefire in Gaza, as well as the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all populated areas of Gaza. Furthermore, the initial phase would entail the release of several captives held in Gaza, including women and the elderly. In exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israel, humanitarian aid would be provided to Gaza. Israel faces deep pressure from within for delaying the rescue of captives. Biden also noted the presence of American hostages who would be released at this stage. He mentioned that Qatar, acting as an intermediary for Islamic terrorist organizations, had transmitted the proposal to Hamas.

    In the second phase, which also lasts six weeks, all remaining hostages would be released, Israel would completely withdraw from Gaza, and both parties would commit to a lasting truce. Finally, a reconstruction plan for Gaza would begin in phase three of the proposal, and the remains of any captives killed would be returned to their families. This plan appears feasible for both parties in the current scenario.

    Hamas, which created all the dilemma and actively tried for a ceasefire in Gaza and proposed a deal previously with the help of Qatar and Egypt, said it welcomed Biden’s remarks and his call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from the Gaza Strip, reconstruction, and prisoner exchange. The group also said it was ready to respond “Positively and Constructively” to any proposal that includes those measures – as well as the return of displaced Palestinians to their homes in Gaza. They consider it a win for them because they conducted Jihad, and Israel and their well-known agencies can’t free the hostages who are kept by Hamas. 

    But on the Israeli side, it’s not easy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office stated that he authorized the country’s negotiating team to present a proposal aiming to secure the release of captives held in Gaza. Currently, Israel considers the immediate release of hostages important. However, the Prime Minister also stated that Israel will persist with the war until all its objectives are met, including the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities. The prime minister said Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages, and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel.

    However, Netanyahu  is facing growing pressure from his military and intelligence chiefs, as well as the centrist members of his war cabinet, to outline a plan for administering and rebuilding Gaza when the war ends. Benny Gantz, a major rival who joined Netanyahu’s emergency unity government after 7 October, has said he will resign if the prime minister does not commit to a “Day After” plan by a deadline of 8 June. And there will be huge backlash from the Right wings too, for ending war without completely destroying Hamas. There are many who consider a ceasefire in Gaza itself a defeat.  It’s expected that the post-war situation will be challenging for Netanyahu as a leader because of a lot of corruption accusations against him. So many don’t believe the move from Israel is reliable, and it’s just a wish from Biden. The US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, reportedly concluded from a visit to the region that he did not believe Netanyahu could or would commit to a long-term peace process.

    Biden’s announcement came as efforts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza have faltered amid the Israeli military’s push into the southern Gaza city of Rafah. The Israeli siege, which has led to dire shortages of food, water, and other humanitarian supplies, has spurred warnings of famine, but Israel is actually not looking to end the war immediately, or Netanyahu cannot do that now. It’s expected that the Gaza war will drag on for another seven months at least, but it will badly hurt Biden’s re-election prospects, who are already facing criticism for poor foreign involvement. While Biden pushes for Israel to agree to the plan, members of Netanyahu’s coalition government will disagree with the proposal and call for the war to continue. This situation makes it complex, so it is expected to once again highlight the weakness of the US government under Biden and it will continue the punishment for Gaza.

  • Does ICC’s Arrest Warrant Against Netanyahu Matter?

    Does ICC’s Arrest Warrant Against Netanyahu Matter?

    Gaza is crumbling into rubble in revenge by Israel. For approximately 1,200 Israeli citizens’ lives, 35,000 Palestinian lives have been taken by Israel, and the violence persists. It is found that no one can rein in Netanyahu’s wish to completely destroy Hamas and harshly punish Hamas-supporting civilians in Gaza. Ceasefire talks are looking completely halted now. The United Nations has proven once again to be a waste of money. On this occasion, where the world can’t do anything except watch the wrath of Israel, an important move happened in the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Chief Prosecutor, Karim Khan, has demanded the arrest of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other important leaders of Israel and Hamas.

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent tribunal with jurisdiction for prosecuting individuals for charges such as international crimes, crimes against humanity, genocides, wars, aggression, and more. With headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, and more than 120 member states, it is considered a major step towards justice and human rights. Even though it was formed just two decades ago in 2002 as a continuation of the Rome Statute, it has faced severe criticism for being Eurocentric, racist, and biased. Many people have criticized the ICC as an organization that targets leaders of third-world countries and authoritarian regimes. Many believe it is another useless body like the United Nations. However, recently, at a time when the world seeks intervention from an international body to stop the bloody conflict between Israel and Palestine, the ICC has taken an important step against these leaders. This marks the first of its kind from the ICC against a Western-style democracy.

    In a predicted vitriolic response, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, reacted to the accusations by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against him and the Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant. Netanyahu’s response was filled with evasions as he called the proposed charges “An attempt to deny Israel the basic right of self-defense”. The Israeli government does not recognize either operation in Gaza as a war; they are simply operating against a devastating terrorist organization, which is a proven threat to their people. Netanyahu stated that they are conducting the operation in accordance with all laws and claimed that Israel had taken unprecedented measures to ensure humanitarian assistance reaches those in need in Gaza. However, this claim is deemed unfounded in light of the evidence showing Israel’s obstruction of the delivery of food, medicine, and other vital supplies to the civilian population of Gaza, leading to famine and malnutrition in certain areas of the region. Israel’s claim does not seem to have impressed its biggest ally, the US, which has suggested making a port near Gaza to pass aid to Gaza and has often condemned the Netanyahu government for obstructing humanitarian aid and its some aid workers also killed in Israel’s attacks. In his reply to the ICC’s move, Netanyahu also played the usual card of antisemitism, accusing Khan of “Callously pouring gasoline on the fires of antisemitism that are raging across the world” and claiming that “Khan takes his place among the great antisemitism in modern times”.

    The US followed suit; Joe Biden called the charges “Outrageous”, and the equivalence of Israel and Hamas made him even more angry. The US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, downplayed. The US government had long opposed the power granted to the court by its founding Rome Treaty to prosecute crimes committed in the territory of member states by nationals of non-member states, but Biden did not express any anger or confusion about welcoming ICC charges against the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, for war crimes in Ukraine. The United States and Israel’s mood were echoed by European countries, the majority of which are member states unlike the US and Israel. The German government repeated the “False Equivalence” charge, criticizing treating the Democratic state of Israel and the notorious terrorist organization, Hamas, the same. Acknowledging the autonomy and significance of the International Criminal Court, certain European governments, particularly France and Belgium, have issued statements endorsing it. While all major European leaders accepted the arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes in Ukraine, the government’s response this time has been more muted. The double standard is clear.

    The whole scenario with ICC started with the petition filed by South Africa alleging Israel was breaching the genocide convention. The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, a British lawyer, has applied for warrants for the arrest of five people in connection with events in Gaza and Israel since Hamas’s October 7 attacks. Khan stated that he had “Reasonable grounds to believe” three Hamas leaders,  Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, and Ismail Haniyeh, bore criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including extermination, murder, taking hostages, rape and sexual violence, torture, and cruel treatment. Furthermore, Khan declared that he had “Reasonable grounds to believe” that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, and Yoav Gallant, the Israeli Defense Minister, bear legal responsibility for war crimes committed during the ongoing conflict. These alleged crimes include “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare”, intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population, and “Extermination and murder,” including deaths caused by starvation. Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas have all rejected these allegations.

    The application now proceeds to one of the ICC’s pre-trial chambers for consideration by a panel of three judges. The arrest warrants may be approved in full, in part, or rejected. Many argue that the ICC doesn’t have much power because it lacks support from superpowers like the United States, Russia, China, and India. Though the blame will fall on Netanyahu’s shoulders if he is issued a warrant. That’s why US politicians threatened sanctions against ICC officials when the Trump administration was in charge. The Biden administration is willing to work in the same way with Congress to potentially impose sanctions against International Criminal Court officials over the prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants for Israeli leaders regarding the Gaza war. The US knows that even though it’s a mere body, the description of war will completely change after the ICC moves for the arrests of the Israeli Prime Minister.

    Although Israel never ratified the court’s founding treaty, the ICC-recognized state of Palestine did sign up, and the court has jurisdiction over nationals of member states and crimes committed in their territory. The 124 states that do, however, are obliged to honor court arrest warrants if they are issued, which could severely curtail the ability of Netanyahu and Gallant to travel abroad. It is expected that the ICC’s arrest warrant will further deepen the country’s growing international isolation over its conduct in the war in Gaza. At the same time, domestic politicians support the president. Many in Israel, including staunch critics of Netanyahu, are outraged by what they see as a false equivalence between a terrorist organization and a democratically elected government. In the short term, it may well rally domestic support for the unpopular Prime minister.

  • Is Iran losing grip on Iraq?

    Is Iran losing grip on Iraq?

    Iraq is in the midst of a power struggle between two power houses: one is their neighbor, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the other is the United States. Both parties are heavily interested in this country, which is divided between Shia, Sunni Muslims, and Kurds, situated in a volatile location in the Middle East. After turbulent years under Saddam Hussein and a subsequent power vacuum, Iraqi politics became heavily influenced by Iran due to the rise of Shia-based political parties. The interests of Shia, Sunni, Iran, and the US  have led to the near disintegration of the state, with the country nearly fragmented and the northern Kurdish territory almost functioning as an independent nation. However, in recent years, it is noted that this Shia-majority country is shifting away from Iran-oriented politics. Many believe that Iraq is drawing closer to the US and distancing itself from Iran.

    Iraq operates as a federal parliamentary representative democratic republic. It follows a multi-party system where executive authority rests with the Prime Minister of the Council of Ministers, serving as the head of government, and the President of Iraq, who serves as the head of state. The Council of Representatives holds legislative power. Abdul Latif Rashid, an ethnic Kurd, currently holds the presidency, wielding significant executive authority. He appointed the Council of Ministers, functioning as the cabinet or government. Mohammed Shia’ Al Sudani, a Shia leader, serves as the current prime minister. Despite its democratic framework, Iraq exhibits signs of an increasingly authoritarian regime. But As regional tensions escalate, Washington will enhance its relationship with Iraq and may consider Iraq’s prime minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani as a potential intermediary in its dealings with Iran.

    Both the United States and Iraq find themselves in a period where they need each other. Al-Sudani recently visited Washington, DC, meeting President Joe Biden and other top US officials. From the White House, al-Sudani addressed the regional tensions and expressed his encouragement for all efforts to stop the expansion of the conflict area. Iraqi officials state that their country was among a handful informed by Iran of the attack on Israel, which followed an Israeli strike on the Iranian Embassy in Damascus. For the US, the Iran-Israel clash highlighted the necessity of maintaining US troops in Iraq for the time being and emphasized the need for the Iraqi government to do more to prevent Iraq from being used as a base of operations against the US and Israel by Iran and allied groups. More than 20 years after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 aimed at removing former leader Saddam Hussein, 2,500 US troops are still stationed in the country, primarily undertaking counter-ISIL (ISIS) roles. Amid regional tensions, al-Sudani appears to prioritize Iraq’s domestic issues, and aims to attract investment in the country’s private sector. Iraq’s economy remains highly reliant on the United States and its financial infrastructure. Al-Sudani is advocating for fewer American restrictions on the Iraqi banking system, increased investments, and enhanced security ties.

    Iran-aligned groups, such as the militias that constitute the Islamic Resistance in Iraq (IRI), pose a threat to both Iraq and US troops stationed there, with many expecting them to become the next al-Qaeda. US troops became targets in the aftermath of Israel’s war on Gaza. There is reason to fear Iran-aligned groups in the country remobilizing if regional tensions expand.  Finding a balance between Iran’s influence and US interests is not easy, with al-Sudani pushed to call for a complete withdrawal of US troops in January, seemingly in response to some 53 US attacks on Iran-aligned groups in Iraq. It’s made clear that al-Sudani doesn’t want to provoke enmity with Iran either. However, his warming connection with the US suggests a weakening of Iran’s control over Iraqi politics. Iraq is set to hold elections in 2025, and the prime minister needs the support of his domestic backers as well as the US if he wants to renew his mandate.

    As for the US, Biden will have both domestic and regional concerns regarding Iraq. The Biden administration is seeking to counter Iranian influence in Iraq at a regional level. The US would seek commitments to ensure Iraq’s sovereignty by minimizing Iranian influence across all levels of decision-making, including politics, economics, and security. And the US will aim to persuade al-Sudani to cooperate with US allies in Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. In the last six months, officials from the Kurdish regional government have made several visits to Washington, aiming to enlist the Biden administration’s support in mediating with Baghdad. The Kurdish leaders generally view Sudani favorably and see him as genuine in his efforts to resolve Baghdad-Erbil issues.

    Iraq, one of the oldest places of civilization, has the third richest oil reserve after Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, it’s true that the country has never fully utilized its potential. There are many blames attributed to the United States, who removed Saddam Hussein for his alleged weapons of mass destruction. Iran has also been blamed for pushing its interests and causing political turmoil in the country. Islamist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS also played a role in the destruction of Iraq. There are many parties to blame, but ultimately, the people are the ones who suffer the most, and they witness the failing of their beautiful state. However, recent developments in politics, moving towards a more neutral stance and cooperating with the United States and its wealth, offer hope for improvements in Iraq.

  • China’s Efforts for Palestine and Its Effects in the Middle East

    China’s Efforts for Palestine and Its Effects in the Middle East

    As over six months have passed since Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s ongoing retaliation, we understand some important trends. Firstly, neither Israel nor Hamas currently wishes for a ceasefire. Secondly, the US doesn’t hold much power over Israel. Indeed, Biden has asked several times for a ceasefire in Gaza, though Israel doesn’t seem to obey it. In the latest development, the US has warned that they will stop providing weapons, but Israel seems unfazed. If the United States can’t take action, Europe remains merely an observer. Saudi Arabia and Iran have demonstrated their weakness in international politics. Russia, engaged in another unending war, likely won’t be inclined to talk peace. India appears to be leaning heavily towards Israel. Qatar, the usual Muslim intermediary, has failed in its efforts. So, who is left to conduct mediation talks on the world stage? We’ve overlooked one significant player: China, rising super power.

    The Soviet Union, once the second pole, was the biggest supporter of Palestine, but they don’t exist now. After three decades of a power vacuum created by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, now we have a significant contender: the dragon, China. During the time of the power vacuum, many things happened in Palestinian politics. The first was the split in administration between the West Bank and Gaza, which severely weakened Palestine. Sensing a diplomatic opening, Chinese President Xi Jinping is stepping up China’s intervention in the Middle East crisis. Beijing’s primary aim is to facilitate reconciliation between the two primary Palestinian factions: the secular Fatah and the Islamist Hamas. Last week, it hosted talks between these two groups. Palestinian unity is seen by China as the most probable and practical solution for Palestine. If Palestine becomes a recognizable country, they will gain more power, and probably China can lead them to more positions in the UN and other bodies. If China accomplishes this, there is no doubt China will be the winner in the Middle East. There has been actual improvement with China’s mediatory efforts. Musa Abu Marzouk, the head of Hamas’s international relations office, stated in a Sunday interview that he anticipates Fatah and Hamas returning to Beijing soon for a second round of talks. He also disclosed that Hamas had wanted China, Russia, and Turkey to act as co-guarantors of any peace deal between Hamas and Israel, signaling Hamas’s distrust of the US’s inability or unwillingness.

    Some analysts perceive China’s engagement as an attempt to supplant the US’s traditional role in between Israel and Palestine. However, China regards its actions as a continuation of the role it played last year in resolving the nine-year diplomatic standoff between Saudi Arabia and Iran. China’s good fortune may be its timing. There is a weak administration currently in the US, and even Japan’s president said last month that the US is in doubt on their own world leader role. In this situation, the initiative made by China is a more practical way to bring about change in Palestine and establish an authorized body as the first step in negotiations with Israel. Both Fatah and Hamas find themselves in difficult situations. Fatah has become significantly unpopular, while Hamas is actively hunted by Israel. Both parties are in need of peace and a resolution. However, there are many hurdles. Just prior to the negotiations, Hamas launched a critique against the new Fatah-led government in the West Bank, asserting that it was not consulted on its formation. Fatah hit back, saying it had not been consulted about Hamas’s attack on Israel. But if they all get into the structure of government and show some unity, they can be presented to Israel for more talks.  As China can fix the Saudi Arabia-Iran issue they can fix this also. 

    The Gaza conflict resulted in a strengthening of China’s pro-Palestinian stance in the Middle East. Within a week of the Hamas attack on 7th October, the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, described Israel’s bombardment of civilians in Gaza as actions that “have gone beyond the scope of self-defense” in a call with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Faisal bin Farhan al-Saud. Xi commented on the crisis after the Third Belt and Road Forum in late October. He restated China’s long-standing support for a two-state solution and pushed for the creation of a humanitarian corridor to aid the Gaza Strip. In February, Beijing pressed the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to weigh in on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories, which China deemed unlawful. It appears that China is exerting more effort compared to what is being contributed by so-called Muslim allies.

    China has been a net importer of oil since 1993, with about half coming from the Middle East. China has become reliant on a region that the US continues to dominate. But as per latest geopolitical happenings, The Middle East now feels the advantage of having an alternative to Washington’s supremacy. Gulf states are heavily investing in China, driven by their desire to free themselves from oil dependence, wean themselves off their over-dependence on the US, and embrace emerging countries, industries, and markets. The US is resisting this trend, for instance, challenging Middle Eastern countries not to invest in Huawei. One of the factors driving Washington’s desire to strike normalization deals with Saudi Arabia is the belief that it can help marginalize Chinese influence in sensitive security and energy sectors. Though, as part of the power game, China now gives hope to Palestine and peace lovers through their efforts.

  • How will “Squad” be beneficial for the Philippines?

    How will “Squad” be beneficial for the Philippines?

    Amid rising tensions, more regional blocs are emerging in East Asia and the Pacific. In addition to the Quad, consisting of Australia, India, Japan, and the US, and AUKUS, a defense pact among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the US, a new regional bloc linking Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and the United States is getting advanced into a more permanent alliance. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin met counterparts from Australia, Japan, and the Philippines last week as Washington sought to deepen ties within the rising regional group, which Pentagon officials had privately nicknamed the “‘Squad”. The quadrilateral marks the latest regional partnership Washington has forged to counter Beijing’s growing assertiveness in the region, and the formation of the alliance holds importance in the region’s evolving landscape as the United States expects imminent tensions in the region.

    The Philippines confronts substantial risks in the South China Sea, owing to its geography and close proximity to the Chinese shore. Nevertheless, the informal alliance referred to as the Squad offers a significant opportunity for the country. The Philippines will receive security assistance including both hardware and human resource training. Analysts suggest that this alliance will enable Manila to “Borrow the Strength” of the other three nations in countering challenges from China and in elevating the Philippines status beyond that of a “Junior Partner”. The Squad is expected to undertake more maritime exercises and provide greater security assistance to the Philippines, which in recent months has been involved in several naval skirmishes with Chinese vessels in the South China Sea. Washington has made it clear to all nations, including China, that Beijing’s recent behavior in the disputed waterway is “Irresponsible” and “Disregards International Law”. 

    The Squad will not just provide Manila with enhanced “Diplomatic Assurances” and assistance in building its capabilities but also guarantee increased interoperability between the Philippines and its allies. The absence of the Philippines in the Quad, formed between Asia-Pacific superpowers like Australia, Japan, India, and the United States, was notable. When India, traditionally allied with Russia, joined forces to counter China, the Philippines, the United States key ally in the region, was not included. This omission appeared to disregard the importance of the Philippines in the regional tensions, but the new alliance appears to rectify this.  Many believe there will be the move to  integrate the Philippines into the Quad to turn it into a five-member grouping, and some believe the United States forming an Asia-Pacific version of NATO. There are more countries in the region facing the threat of China and have entered into separate pacts with the US, such as Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Singapore. They could join with them when analyzing the tensions in the region.

    However, there are also dissenting voices; some argue that likening China to the Soviet Union or Russia is a mistake, suggesting that these agreements primarily benefit US interests. Chinese analysts warned that the Philippines had become increasingly manipulated by the US, losing its autonomy and becoming a pawn of the US in the region. Countries like India, never an ally of the US, have joined with them only to counter China, and they hold separate interests in the region. The integrating security pact will not agree with India, as they have been seeking separate relationships, including with the Philippines. India has forged ties with Manila, as seen in the recent sales of BrahMos missiles to the Philippines, noting that India-Philippines ties were likely to progress in non-traditional security areas such as cybersecurity, anti-piracy, and anti-terrorism. Last month, India delivered its first batch of supersonic cruise missiles to the Philippines under a $375 million deal signed in 2022. However, the recent aggression of China on Philippines vessels is validating the Philippines moves and bringing the country to the center of tensions. 

    The United States can’t allow a situation like Ukraine in the South China Sea because significant suffering is occurring for the US and Europe due to the war. Additionally, as China seems to be losing momentum and facing significant challenges in its manufacturing sector, many predict that this situation will lead to an aggressive stance from China in the South China Sea, with the Philippines being a sure target in that situation. Here underscores the significance of the Squad; a bolstered opposition could prompt China to reassess its position. For the Philippines, it extends beyond security concerns; they foresee that aligning with the US can elevate them to the status of a regional power.

  • Impact of Biden’s Xenophobia Comment on Asian Politics

    Impact of Biden’s Xenophobia Comment on Asian Politics

    The United States Presidential race is heating up. President Joe Biden, appearing aged and sluggish, intends to seek another term for the presidential role. The Democrat, known for his pro-migration stance, consistently supports and welcomes immigrants. Biden’s recent comment favoring the country’s migration policy, in comparison with Asia, is emerging as a controversial topic in the political sphere. At last week’s event to raise funds for his 2024 re-election campaign, Biden remarked that their welcoming stance towards immigrants was a contributing factor to their growth of the economy. He proceeded with the economic struggles of China, Japan, Russia, and India, attributing them to their xenophobic reluctance to accept immigrants. Biden underscored the strength immigrants bring to a nation, but with negative comments on rivals China and Russia, and interestingly towards Japan and India. Such a seemingly casual remark from a seasoned politician has the potential to impact foreign relationships badly.

    Biden’s comments against Asian countries’ xenophobia, were only meant to target Trump’s policies, but they made news in the Asian political landscape. Despite Russia, China, and India being multi-ethnic countries historically welcoming foreigners, their immigration policies do not resemble those of the United States or Western countries today. These countries’ stringent immigration laws and high population numbers coupled with a low job market, make them unattractive destinations for migration. These countries have significant multi-ethnic cities, such as Hong Kong, Mumbai, and Moscow, but small cities and villages usually don’t have that multi ethnic color. Though these countries’ populations and religions are generally open to foreigners, their politicians often run campaigns against immigrants. The stringent regulations are directly linked with politics. The countries are notorious for campaigns against the US, and which is often referred to as Xenophobia. But the comments against these countries by Biden, used by politicians in these countries, are being used to further escalate anti-American sentiments. However, mentioning Japan in the comment, a staunch ally of the United States, adds an intriguing dimension to the discussion.

    Japan is more notorious for xenophobia than other countries in Biden’s comment, and historically, this trait has been visible in Japanese society. The nation, which prides itself on its homogeneity, has long been hesitant about immigration. However, its falling birth rate and rapidly aging population point to an acute labor shortage in the coming decades. Many experts believe that Japan’s lagging economy is a result of its strict regulations on immigration. In the case of Japan, Biden’s comment is actually true. However, Making a negative comment on Japan alongside comments about enemy nations is a blow for Japan. Japan has been described as “Regrettable”, the top government spokesperson said on Tuesday. Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan, Yoshimasa Hayashi informed at a scheduled regular news conference that representations had been lodged with the United States. These representations indicated that the comment was not based on the correct understanding of Japan’s migration policy and was regrettable. Japan’s ties with its security ally, the United States, remain solid. Nevertheless, this type of comment will definitely affect people’s mood.

    Only a few weeks before, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida visited Washington for a summit with Biden and unveiled plans for military cooperation and projects ranging from missiles to moon landings to strengthen ties with an eye toward countering China and Russia. At this time, mentioning Japan was an unnecessary move by Biden. At Least it doesn’t need  to be criticized along with the enemy states. China and Russia already have strained connections with America. Regarding India, they were moved towards the direction of the U.S. during Trump. But, Biden’s comment has already made headlines in India, and it could worsen the relationship. This is certainly a blunder by Biden at a time when strong alliances with Japan and India are needed to counter the growing influence of China and Russia in the continent. While Trump was accused by Biden of damaging foreign relations, Biden’s actions may be causing even more harm to the United States’ foreign relationships.

  • Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Approach to Gaza Challenges

    Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Approach to Gaza Challenges

    Following Israel, Saudi Arabia stands as the United States’ foremost ally in the Middle East. The connection between the kingdom and Washington is robust and intimate, with both entities walking hand in hand towards shared goals. However, Saudi Arabia, the land of Mohammed, the site of Mecca and Medina, a country that still upholds strict Sharia law and one of the largest funders of Islamist organizations always says about a commitment to Palestine. The question arises: How long can they continue to turn their face against their fellow Muslim brothers in Gaza? The issue in Palestine has never been solely between Palestine and Israel, two countries, but has always been perceived as a conflict between Muslims and Jews, thus garnering global attention. Saudi Arabia, considering itself as the leader of Muslims, has faced significant criticism for its inaction regarding Palestine. However, recent developments suggest that Saudi Arabia is strategically moving to gain more benefits from the United States by staying with them in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    Saudi Arabia still doesn’t have a formal relationship with Israel, even though the United States is the primary ally of both Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia cooperated with the Arab League against Israel in the initial years of the Arab-Israeli conflicts. However, they played only minor roles in the series of wars. Even though Hamas and Palestine maintain stronger ties to Saudi Arabia’s rivals, Iran and Qatar, Saudi Arabia did not try to publicly align with Israel, not even during the Trump administration when Saudi Arabia’s allies like the UAE and Bahrain established formal ties with Israel. However, business between them gained momentum as Saudi Arabia’s allies established diplomatic relations with Israel. But all the progress was lost when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th of last year. The Hamas attack, Israel’s retaliation, and perceived poor administration from the US under Biden have brought the Israel-Saudi Arabia relationship to a standstill. Some even doubt if the Hamas attack on Israel was orchestrated by Iran and Russia to halt Israel-Saudi Arabia talks. If an axis develops among the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, other players will be thrown out of the scenario. However, now there is widespread anger among the Muslim population against Israel, including in Saudi Arabia. Due to strict laws, protests are unlikely, yet criticism is high as the Saudi government hasn’t intervened. Meanwhile, Iran and Turkey are using the situation to assert their roles as advocates for Islam and leaders of the Muslim world.

    Saudi Arabia is actually strategically maneuvering its position. The kingdom is presently focused on diminishing its reliance on Israel while leveraging the circumstances to secure more favorable terms with the United States. Despite encountering criticism from certain segments of the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia perceives this strategy as advantageous. With no ceasefire in Gaza and strong opposition from Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government to a Palestinian state, the Saudis are now pushing for a more streamlined alternative. Which is excluding Israel from the deals with the United States. This alternative involves bilateral defense pacts, US assistance in developing Saudi Arabia’s civil nuclear energy sector, and significant collaboration in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. Under Riyadh’s proposal, these agreements would not require Israel’s approval. The United States is cautious about involving Israel at this stage, fearing that Saudi Arabia might pivot towards alignment with China or Russia, which could undermine US dominance in the region and have significant economic repercussions. While the exclusion of Israel from these agreements will impact Israel, it is expected that Israeli businesses will shift to the US. A formal offer would be extended to Israel, proposing Saudi normalization, a significant objective in Israeli foreign policy, in exchange for definitive steps towards establishing a Palestinian state encompassing Gaza and the West Bank. The US aimed for this offer to become a focal point in Israeli politics, particularly during elections following the potential collapse of the Netanyahu government. 

    Saudi Arabia, one of the powerhouse of the Middle East,  ranks as the world’s second-largest oil producer after the United States and the second-largest GDP in the Middle East, trailing only Turkey. They are in an effort to transition from strict Islamic laws to a more economy-oriented perspective involving substantial investments in media, tourism, and sports. Furthermore, they aspire to host prestigious global events such as the FIFA World Cup and Olympics on their soil, underscoring their prioritizations. The support of the United States will ensure that Saudi Arabia can achieve this endeavor. However, a less assertive stance on the Gaza situation has the potential to tarnish Saudi Arabia’s reputation as the leader of Islamic states. On the other hand, it aids the United States in intensifying efforts to bolster bilateral trade, enhance security partnerships, and promote technological advancements, including the establishment of a uranium processing plant. Concerns regarding the kingdom’s human rights record and women’s rights issues, which no longer seem to trouble the United States. Instead, they aim to maintain a close alliance with Saudi Arabia, And that Saudi Arabia is keenly aware of.

  • How Does US Foreign Aid Package Benefit Taiwan?

    How Does US Foreign Aid Package Benefit Taiwan?

    Taiwan, along with Ukraine and Israel, receives a significant amount of funds and help as part of the US-declared Foreign Aid Package. After much delay and contentious debate, and following calls from Ukraine, the foreign aid bill was signed by United States President Joe Biden last Wednesday. Three countries are  benefiting directly from the bill and receiving significant amounts of money. One is Ukraine, which is engaged in a strong war with Russia and is in high demand for money and weapons. Another country is the conventional ally, Israel, which is in conflict with Hamas and also in need of money and aid from the United States. The third is Taiwan, whose inclusion is interesting because they are not currently at war. However, it needs to be considered that the United States expects more tensions in the region, and is preparing for it.

    The foreign aid package, amounting to $95 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, contains provisions that have a broad impact on many parts of the Asia-Pacific region. Through the bill, House Republicans allocated $8.1 billion for the Indo-Pacific region, framing it as an effort to counter the People’s Republic of China, which claims Taiwan and the entire South China Sea. Within the foreign aid package, $2 billion is earmarked for the foreign military financing program, benefiting Taiwan and other security partners in the Indo-Pacific, all of whom are deemed crucial in confronting Chinese aggression according to the US. This financing program enables eligible partner nations to procure US defense articles, services, and training. Additionally, $1.9 billion will support defense-related expenses for Taiwan and other regional partners, while $542 million will specifically enhance US military capabilities in the region which will bolster regional deterrence.

    The primary allocation of funding within the bill is directed towards projects within the United States itself. $3.3 billion from the bill is allocated to bolster the domestic submarine-building industry. Of this amount, $1.9 billion is specifically designated for the Columbia-class submarine, the latest class of nuclear-powered submarines for the United States. An additional $200 million is allocated for a Virginia-class submarine as well. The majority of these funds will be invested domestically, benefiting over 16,000 suppliers across all 50 states. The inclusion of submarine funding was a prerequisite for congressional approval of the Aukus deal involving the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Its purpose is to ensure that the United States can fulfill Australia’s requirement for Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines without compromising its own capability needs. Therefore, this package will contribute to the US economy and US foreign relationships simultaneously.

    The delay in passing the bill sparked significant criticism against the government both inside and outside the US. A significant outcry arose from Ukraine, which is currently in urgent need of financial assistance. However, it wasn’t easy for the United States; there were protests against spending US taxpayers’ money on Ukraine and war, with arguments advocating for peace talks with Russia. Additionally, Israel being another beneficiary led to further delays, as Israel’s aggressive stance resulted in numerous civilian deaths in Gaza, demanding the US to intervene and halt the conflict. Protests are mounting in the US, with participation from many students, human rights activists, and Islamic communities. Additionally, there are many people who are against funding Taiwan. They fear that increased financial support and weapon systems provided to the Asia-Pacific region will escalate tensions. However, such actions are deemed necessary by the US to stimulate its economy, given the need for government spending and pressure from businesses.

    Taiwan considers the aid package essential for its defense and expresses concerns about China’s potential future aggression. Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen applauded the foreign aid package. According to Beijing’s Taiwan Affairs Office, the aid gravely breaches  US obligations to China and sends the wrong message to separatists seeking Taiwan’s independence. China is concerned about this development since the US is expected to gain more influence in the region as a result of the Foreign Aid Package for Taiwan, which would draw other nations closer to the US. The political environment in Asia Pacific will change as a result of these measures. China, which considers Taiwan its own territory, has consistently urged a halt to arms supplies, while the United States continues to be Taiwan’s most significant international supporter and arms supplier despite the lack of formal diplomatic ties. Thus, it is certain that the foreign aid package will impact the balance of power in the area.

  • What is Driving the Increase of Gaza Protests in Western Countries?

    What is Driving the Increase of Gaza Protests in Western Countries?

    Global Muslim solidarity has kept Palestine alive, or Palestine has kept alive global Muslim solidarity. Sunnis, Shias, and Mujahideen all share common thoughts for Palestine. Deep sentiments for Palestine have been created by Muslim writers. Muslim countries have joined together, even launching attacks for Palestine. Muslim journalists have penned articles in various languages, English, French, German, Hindi, to garner support for protests for Gaza. Muslim students have organized massive rallies in Dhaka, Karachi, Mumbai, Baghdad, and many other places, all orchestrated like a finely conducted concert for Palestine and people, who are suffering there. All of this has presented global support for Palestine, despite Israel and the United States supporters leading most influential institutions and newspapers. However, it’s interesting to note that this harmony for Palestine is not as evident after the recent attack in Gaza. Muslim countries are issuing statements but not taking significant actions against Israel. Palestine-related articles featuring images of suffering people are not prevalent in Eastern newspapers, even though casualties are high. Furthermore, students in Pakistan, India, and Arab countries are not as active on the streets for Palestine. Meanwhile, protests for Gaza are intensifying on the US campuses and in the streets of European cities. It’s interesting,  There are more big protests in London than in Karachi.

    Large-scale protests for Gaza are ongoing in reputable US universities like Columbia University and on major European streets, as well as in Australia, amid police arrests and clashes with other groups in an unprecedented manner. Despite these countries alignment with Israel and the continued support of popular politicians for Israel, many Muslim communities, human rights supporters, sympathizers, and left-leaning individuals are joining together to create large-scale protests in Western countries to oppose war and uphold humanity. This movement is unprecedented in scale. Some universities have been forced to cancel their graduation ceremonies, while others have witnessed entire buildings being occupied by protesting students. Police intervention has exacerbated the situation. Interestingly, in the Middle East and South Asia, traditional centers for protests remain relatively calm. The Gulf states do not support democratic protests and enforce strict laws against them, while Arab republics like Iraq and Egypt have tight controls due to links with extremist radicals among protestors. In populous Muslim countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh in South Asia, there is fear that protests for Gaza could become targets for looming terrorist organizations in the country. Additionally, in India, traditionally a home for intellectual Muslims, the government under Narendra Modi is taking a hardline stance against protests for Gaza and Palestine.

    So, the looming protests in Western nations are occurring only because they can be conducted safely and publicly there. A large number of people, especially students and intellectuals, have migrated to these countries from Arab states and South Asia. They can express their anger and sympathy for Israel’s actions against Palestinian Muslims through protests for Gaza. Moreover, they will receive support from human rights and left-wing groups, which is not as readily available in Arab and South Asian countries. Conducting rallies in Pakistani and Bangladeshi cities will garner less news value. However, many critics argue that the mounting protests will have a reverse effect in Western countries. Social media is already displaying animosity towards Islamist people who have migrated to the West. These protests will likely exacerbate such animosity, with right-wing politicians exploiting it to cast doubt on and wonder about the large-scale protests led by Muslim intellectuals in support of Gaza. Consequently, there is a fear that mounting protests for Gaza will fuel racism and anti-Islamic sentiments.

    The shift of “Protests for Gaza” from east to west is a clear indication of recent migration patterns as well. Eastern countries tend to restrict free speech or expression for Muslims, prompting known Muslim intellectuals and individuals to migrate to the West, where they can utilize freedom of speech to advocate for Muslims. This trend is evident, for example, in India, which was once a hub of protests for Gaza but has significantly changed in the last 10 years under the Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi, which favors Israel and takes stringent actions against Palestine protests. Muslim intellectuals from such countries have migrated to the West, where they have the freedom to protest. This trend is also visible in Pakistan and Arab countries. Therefore, these shifts in the locations of protests for Gaza not only signify the emergence of voices for the suffering people in Gaza but also highlight changes in global politics.

  • 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.