Tag: World

  • BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    BRICS Shows Strength in Russia

    There are many multinational alliances in the world today, such as the European Union, NATO, the GCC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN. Most of these are regional organizations focused on enhancing cooperation and elevating the importance of their respective regions. However, BRICS stands apart as a unique entity—neither regional nor military like NATO. Instead, it is an international body created as an alternative to the dominance of the United States. BRICS, originally formed as BRIC in 2009 with the addition of Brazil to the team of Russia, India, and China—four of the world’s top 10 economies—was later joined by South Africa. The group initially aimed to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and U.S. technology while boosting investment opportunities. Now in its 16th year, BRICS has become an increasingly significant geopolitical bloc. They are currently holding their 16th summit in Kazan, Russia, chaired by Vladimir Putin, a leader ostracized by the West, with more than 36 global leaders in attendance. The summit underscores the group’s independence and its indifference to the United States and the West.

    Beyond the typical photo shoots, the 16th summit in Kazan showcases the unity of its members. Several meetings are planned among various state leaders, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This summit also marks the debut of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. The expanded membership suggests a shift toward alliances reminiscent of the Cold War era, when states formed strong, politically driven partnerships. Despite economic threats from the United States, all participants are eager to cooperate, and Putin is using the occasion to assert Russia’s enduring global relevance. The summit can be viewed as a personal success for Putin, as he has brought together nations like China and India, which were previously on the verge of conflict in a way that questions the existence of the bloc.

    The meeting between Chinese president Xi Jinping and Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi takes place after five years as part of the summit. The relationship between China and India was very strained, following deadly fights at the border. Emerging reports indicate that China and India are actively working to resolve their border disputes and are ready to cooperate as they did in earlier years. This development poses a significant setback to U.S. efforts to divide the coalition and pull India to its side.

    Russia is also using the Kazan BRICS summit to push de-dollarization as a key agenda item. With Western sanctions severely impacting its businesses, Russia is seeking alternatives, and China, with its expansionist ambitions, is also anticipating potential sanctions. Iran, a new BRICS member, has likewise suffered under U.S. sanctions. Together, these countries are advocating for a faster transition to de-dollarization, increased use of local currencies in trade, and the strengthening of financial institutions as alternatives to U.S.-controlled banks. However, there is some resistance from India, Brazil, and South Africa, which are hesitant to accelerate the process despite their shared goal of finding an alternative to the dollar.

    The summit is expected to yield agreements on expanding trade routes and enhancing cooperation. Strengthening trade ties has been BRICS’ biggest achievement to date, helping Russia and Iran maintain relatively stable economies despite harsh Western sanctions. If India and China can rebuild their cooperation, the group’s economic power will grow significantly. Russia is working hard toward this goal, and key meetings and important decisions are anticipated at this iteration of the BRICS Summit.

    Most people in the West may not even be aware of BRICS, but it’s evident that something significant is brewing in the East that could counterbalance the United States. BRICS+ now boasts a larger GDP than the G7 or the EU, and its banks and institutions prioritize equal participation, unlike those dominated by the U.S. While Russia and China have demonstrated their capacity to challenge American influence, the inclusion of members like India, Iran, and Brazil suggests the group is poised to push further against U.S. interests. Although still in its early stages, BRICS has already proven capable of bypassing strict U.S. sanctions through enhanced cooperation. Politically, the 2024 BRICS Summit presents a challenge to U.S. dominance in global politics and represents a pivotal moment for Putin, signaling his and Russia’s resurgence on the global stage.

  • Germany to Build Strategic Relationship in Central Asia

    Germany to Build Strategic Relationship in Central Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Will Pager explosions escalate tensions in the Middle East?

    Will Pager explosions escalate tensions in the Middle East?

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

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

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

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

  • How Will the U.S. Election Impact the Israel-Gaza Conflict, and Vice Versa?

    How Will the U.S. Election Impact the Israel-Gaza Conflict, and Vice Versa?

    Israel’s war on Gaza shows no signs of ending soon, and countries around the world seem unwilling to intervene. The only country outside of Israel with the capacity to meaningfully intervene is the United States. Despite being the world’s most powerful country, capable of diplomatic and military operations anywhere, the U.S. appears constrained in acting against Israel’s will, a nation it holds dear. With a sizable Jewish and Muslim population – both of whom are divided over the Israel-Gaza conflict – the U.S. presidential election is also expected to be influenced by the situation. In response to growing negative sentiment and campus protests in solidarity with Palestine, the U.S., along with its Arab allies, has attempted to broker a ceasefire and develop a solution, but these efforts have not succeeded. With Biden stepping away from the presidential race, the U.S. now awaits the upcoming contest between hard-right Republican Trump and left-leaning Democrat Kamala Harris to see how future intervention in the Israel-Gaza conflict will unfold.

    While both candidates follow core U.S. policies in the Middle East, their approaches to resolving the conflict differ. Kamala Harris has not outlined detailed plans but remains firmly committed to Israel, continuing the U.S.’s long standing support for the nation. She reaffirmed her backing of Israel, emphasizing the need to secure the release of hostages, while advocating for a two-state solution to provide both Palestinian sovereignty and security, which conventionally the US does not endorse. 

    Harris advocates for a ceasefire, conditioned on Hamas releasing the hostages taken during the October 7 attack and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. She was among the first Western leaders to call for a ceasefire in early March and has been more outspoken than President Biden regarding the humanitarian crisis caused by Israel’s military actions in Gaza. However, she has yet to make progress in advancing negotiations on this issue. Despite her reported disagreements with Prime Minister Netanyahu over his handling of the war, she has not proposed any actions that would directly affect his government. Notably, she skipped Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in July but met with him privately during his visit to Washington. Harris’s positions can appear inconsistent or impractical, raising questions about the feasibility of her approach.

    Donald Trump, the former president, has clearly stated his position on the Israel-Gaza conflict and claims to have a resolution plan. He has pledged to resolve the issue quickly if re-elected. However, he has not provided specifics on how he would negotiate with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas to achieve a ceasefire and secure the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

    Trump has consistently supported Israel’s war on Gaza, urging the country to conclude the conflict swiftly due to diminishing international support. Although he was initially critical of Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence for being unprepared for the Oct. 7 attack, he quickly retracted those comments and reaffirmed his strong alliance with Netanyahu, with whom he had a close relationship during his presidency. During his time in office, Trump released a peace proposal he called a blueprint for a two-state solution. However, this plan did not propose a fully autonomous Palestinian state and was perceived as heavily favoring Israel. Trump’s administration strongly backed Netanyahu’s government and endorsed hard-liner Israeli policies previously rejected by the U.S. His presidency also saw a significant warming of relations between Israel and several Arab countries, highlighting his skills as a negotiator and businessman.

    Criticism of the current U.S. government’s actions is likely to target Kamala Harris, as American activists have reported on the ongoing casualties from the war. Traditionally, Muslim and Arab voters lean toward the Democratic Party, but dissatisfaction with the current administration’s handling of the situation and its stance on Israel has caused frustration. Additionally, many liberals and anti-war advocates within the Democratic base are unhappy with the government’s response. While Trump is unlikely to gain favor from these groups due to his pro-Israel stance, many believe he might be able to end the conflict with his negotiation and problem-solving skills, which previously helped improve relations between Arabs and Israelis during his tenure. A ceasefire before the election seems unlikely, as the outgoing president, who is not running for re-election, would not gain any political advantage from such a deal.

  • Is Israel Expanding the War to the West Bank?

    Is Israel Expanding the War to the West Bank?

    Israel’s retaliatory actions against Hamas are now expanding to cover the entire Palestinian territory, including the West Bank – a region governed by the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas, and recognized by many countries worldwide. While the global Islamic community and anti-war supporters express solidarity with Palestine and condemn the civilian casualties, Israel continues to cite the October 7th attack, a clear act of terrorism by Hamas, as justification for its actions. Interestingly, this stance has effectively silenced much of the international community.

    However, with rising tensions in the West Bank – a region crucial for establishing an independent Palestine – it is worth considering that Israel may be pursuing a broader strategy aimed at eliminating any possibility of a Palestinian state, rather than solely targeting Hamas. While Israel claims to be focusing on militants, including senior Hamas officials, its actions suggest a more extensive plan.

    The death toll among Palestinians in the West Bank is rising rapidly following two days of Israeli attacks involving helicopters, drones, and ground forces. Between 2020 and October 2023, only six Palestinians in the West Bank were killed in airstrikes. However, this week, the UN reported that since October 2023, 136 Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed in Israeli airstrikes – a sharp and alarming increase. Israel justifies its actions as necessary for self-defense, claiming it is responding to attacks allegedly carried out with Iranian-supplied weapons. However, the bombing of civilians from the skies increasingly appears to be an attempt to terrorize the population into submission – a strategy that is intensifying.

    Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank is rapidly increasing as the state seeks to consolidate control over more land. Much of this territory, initially arid and inhospitable, has been transformed into livable space by settlers, yet it remains designated under international agreements, including the Oslo Accords, as part of a future Palestinian state. Fueled by substantial investments and growing political pressures, Israel’s commitment to advancing these projects is unwavering, rendering any withdrawal from them highly improbable and impractical. The challenge of evacuating 8,000 Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005, which faced intense opposition, stands in stark contrast to the nearly 90 times as many settlers now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Jewish dominance is increasingly apparent in many areas of the eastern territory, and Israel perceives it as both a duty and a moral obligation to protect its citizens. In this context, the current conflict may serve Israel’s strategic interests by diminishing remaining opposition and facilitating further territorial expansion under the guise of wartime necessity.

    Despite facing a severe blockade, Gaza remains a separate territory with its own government. Israel argues that a similar situation in the West Bank, should it withdraw, would pose a significant security risk, a concern heightened by Hamas’s actions. Although there is still hope for the establishment of a Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly just one day before the historic ICJ opinion to pass a resolution—co-sponsored by parties within Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition and supported by both right-wing and centrist opponents – rejecting the creation of a Palestinian state. This context clarifies that the ongoing attacks in the West Bank is not simply about targeted attacks akin to those in Lebanon or Iran. 

    The world’s major powers, including the United States, and Islamic countries that have long used the issue of Palestine to evoke Islamic solidarity, have struggled to reach an agreement to end the ongoing bloodshed. Without a resolution, confidence in global institutions, which have so far proven ineffective, risks fading. Hamas has demonstrated that a long-term resolution can only be achieved through diplomacy, allowing both peoples to coexist peacefully. However, it must be noted that either Israel has seized the opportunity, or Hamas has made Israel’s objectives achievable.

  • Islamic Republic: What Does It Mean?

    Islamic Republic: What Does It Mean?

    Islam and Republic: Two philosophies or political systems that seem situated at opposite ends, with different views and morals, appear incompatible in the eyes of many. However, in politics, anything is possible, and some politicians have combined these ideas to form a unique system known as an Islamic Republic. This term now refers to a sovereign state that takes a compromise position between a purely Islamic caliphate and a secular, nationalist republic. The nature of this compromise can be defined by the constitution makers, so it varies from country to country, but they all claim to be Islamic republics. Every Islamic Republic administration emphasizes a stronger cultural identity rooted in Islamism, as it is neither a traditional Islamic monarchy under a king  nor a modern secular republic. Confused? So is everyone, from the constitution makers to the common people.

    Currently, three countries officially claim to be Islamic Republics: the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. All of them emphasize Islam and Sharia law but do not have a monarchy to lead them. Instead, politicians, mostly Islamists are the policy makers, prefer not to emulate Western republics and aim to preserve their cultural identity. Thus, these three crafted their constitutions under the title of Islamic Republic, each being unique and distinct. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a federal parliamentary republic, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania is a unitary semi-presidential republic, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is a unitary theocratic republic. They have different governing systems and were formed in different situations. 

    There have been other short-lived Islamic Republics in history, such as those in Bangladesh, Comoros, Afghanistan, Gambia, and in Central Asia and the Caucasus, but all were forced out soon after their establishment. Thanks to the people of Pakistan, Mauritania, and Iran for enduring challenges and keeping their regimes alive.

    Pakistan, a country formed in response to the long-standing demands of Islamists in the Indian subcontinent, established its first Islamic Republic constitution in 1956. This move was considered revolutionary in the Islamic world. At that time, newly formed countries in the Islamic world were opting to be secular republics rather than monarchies. As a result, Pakistan gained prominence in the Islamic world for adhering to Islamic principles, unlike other new republics such as Turkey, which embraced secularism. With this move, Pakistan effectively created a new Islamic cultural identity, which it had previously lacked, skillfully differentiating itself from its Indian heritage with diverse languages and ethnicities. 

    However, many political scientists believe that Pakistan’s Islamic Republic constitution was a product of the divergence between British-educated Islamists, like the founding president Muhammad Ali Jinnah, and conservative Islamists. To solve this, they combined Sharia with modern British laws to appeal to the populace. The case of Mauritania is somewhat similar, but instead of British influence, French influence shaped its Islamic Republic constitution.

    Perhaps the Islamic Republic of Iran, which brands itself as an Islamic Republic across all sectors from the military to the media, is the most notorious example of such a state. Founded after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the unpopular Shah regime, the Islamic Republic has led to a steep economic and cultural decline for Iran, which was more developed at that time compared to Pakistan and Mauritania. With the new constitution to protect Sharia and Islamism coming into force under the Shia Supreme Leader, the country has been ruined by poor diplomacy, tough sanctions, and harsh living conditions over the past 45 years. As a result, many citizens harbor hatred towards the Islamic Republic and resent the government’s harsh actions against any demands for change or protests against Islamic law. While the Islamic Republic is not an Islamic monopoly like Saudi Arabia, it enforces a more extreme form of Islamism, resulting in significant resistance from the people.

    The Islamic Republic can be considered a failed administrative system, as evidenced by the deep economic and cultural struggles of countries. The system favors corruption and poor governance, and the lack of skilled people has led to economic and diplomatic collapse. Strict Islamic laws, without supervision as in a monarchy, lead to outdated practices like mob lynching and blasphemy incidents. The rift between hard believers and mild believers is very high, and in countries where even mild believers and non-believers are hunted, minorities have no role. Overall, people are forced to suffer under these governments because they are protecting Islam. Pathetic!

  • What Does the European Parliament Election Mean for Asia?

    What Does the European Parliament Election Mean for Asia?

    An important election is underway in Europe for the next European Parliament. Voting is taking place in all 27 nations of the European Union (EU), with polling set to conclude on Sunday. Approximately 373 million people across Europe are participating in the election to choose 720 members of the Parliament. This election will be crucial in shaping the priorities and political trajectory of the influential European Union for the next five years. The EU is currently dealing with pressing issues such as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as challenges related to immigration and climate change. Polls suggest that hard-right parties are expected to make significant gains in several countries, a development that could have profound long-term implications for the continent. The world’s largest multi-country election, involving influential countries like France and Germany, will also impact global politics. Furthermore, many issues affecting Asia are also being discussed in the election campaigns.

    The European Parliament is the only EU institution where representatives are directly elected, and its Members of Parliament pass laws that are applied across all member states. For any legislation to be implemented, both the Council and the Parliament must agree. The Parliament also has ultimate approval over the funds allocated in the EU budget. The European Parliament is often the final authority on major policy issues such as the budget, trade, and sanctions on foreign nationals. It can also put major international objectives on hold, in the interest of the bloc.

    There are seven main groupings in the European Parliament, ranging from the extremes of the far right to the far left. The two dominant groupings are the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the center-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D). Because of proportional representation, no single group holds a majority, necessitating the formation of broad coalitions to accomplish tasks in Parliament. While these two parties are expected to be the largest after the elections, all eyes are on the other main right-wing groups: the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the hard-right, populist Identity and Democracy (ID). Once all the votes have been counted, each national political party will be assigned a number of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) relative to their vote share. It is up to the member states to determine how these seats are allocated. Full results are expected on Monday.

    The European market is crucial for Asian countries, making this election significant in light of the ongoing trade war with tariffs and other regulations. The trade conflict that began between the USA and China has now extended to Europe. The European market is a significant outlet for Chinese production, and additional regulations on Chinese goods will undoubtedly impact the Chinese economy and potentially the broader Asian economy as well. Right-wing groups are concerned about the loss of production to China and are advocating for more aggressive actions against market penetration by Chinese products. The push from Chinese companies in the electric vehicle (EV) market is being scrutinized by Parliament, and China is awaiting the results to gauge future trade laws against them. There is also a plan to find alternatives to China, such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, and it is expected that the European Parliament will pursue this.

    As there are many migrants from Asia to Europe, both legal and illegal, this causes concern among right-wing groups, who frequently criticize current immigration laws. Therefore, the European Parliament election results are important for shaping future immigration policies, with expectations of tighter immigration controls. The current immigration system by the EU is contributing to the rapid development of far-right politics in Europe. Climate change is a key issue in the election campaigns. While left and green parties are advocating for more stringent emission restrictions, it is expected that the right-wing will gain ground in this election and work towards rolling back climate policies. This could indirectly benefit the Asian economy, as climate change discussions and restrictions have often targeted countries like China, India, and oil producers in the Middle East. The ongoing conflict in Gaza will also be influenced by the European Parliament election. The Gaza war is currently supported by many European countries, but the European Union does not intervene much. As the conflict continues, many believe that Europe needs to take a move. The upcoming parliament may not intervene in the conflict, given that right-wing parties generally support Israel’s actions. The parliament’s approach to expanding European influence into the Caucasus will also be closely monitored, as it could significantly impact the power dynamics in Asia. 

    It is expected that the European election trend will also influence the elections in member states. A surge of far-right influence is anticipated in Europe’s upcoming elections, including in France. If they perform well in the European Parliament election, it could herald a golden age of far-right politics in Europe. This would not only influence and shape the European Union and the European continent but also have repercussions across all continents. Asia is likely to bear the brunt, especially as tensions rise between the superpowers.

  • 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.

  • Xi Jinping’s Euro Trip: A Political Analysis

    Xi Jinping’s Euro Trip: A Political Analysis

    Chinese President Xi Jinping is on an important visit to Europe. Xi will engage in extensive discussions with European leaders, as Europe is actively seeking a truce in Ukraine and, in return, China is expected to reduce tariffs on Chinese products. The Chinese President’s visit marks the first time since 2019, with five eventful years having passed since then. The visit, just before the European election, is gaining importance as a trade war continues between China and Europe. Xi’s trip includes stops in France, the heart of Europe; Hungary, China’s closest ally in Europe; and Serbia, considered the unwanted child of Europe. Despite signs of growth in the Chinese economy, the ongoing disputes with their second-biggest trading partner, the European Union, are causing huge losses for China, prompting an emphasis on more trade agreements at the meetings. It is expected that the meetings will also be influenced by Russia’s demands.

    Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, and Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, will meet with the President of China in Paris. Von der Leyen has expressed the European Union’s continuous dissatisfaction with China, citing the latter’s significant manufacturing subsidies. She denounced China for its unfair trade policies and the unacceptably distorted markets brought forth by these substantial subsidies. Such actions might cause Europe to become less industrialized and result in a large loss of jobs, especially in the German auto sector.  Last September, the EU commenced an investigation to consider imposing punitive tariffs. The aim is to protect EU producers from the influx of cheaper Chinese Electric Vehicle (EV) imports, which benefit from state subsidies. This investigation, part of a series initiated by Brussels, covers various supplies to Europe, including medical devices and wind turbines. These products are being sold at half the cost of those made in Europe. The European Commission’s trade chief hinted that tariffs on Chinese EVs could be imposed by June, following an investigation into state support for electric car manufacturing in China. The European Union expresses concerns about the possible circumvention of sanctions against Russia by Chinese enterprises engaging in trade with their neighbor. However, China argues that the trade investigations are driven by political motives and that the consumer would be the lone casualty of a tariff war.

    Regarding the war in Ukraine, Xi acknowledged the impact it has had on the people of Europe, emphasizing that China is not directly involved in the conflict but is actively pursuing a peaceful resolution. One of Europe’s long-standing requests of China, particularly from Macron, has been to exert pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war. However, after two years, Europeans have come to realize that this is unlikely to happen, especially considering Russia’s support from China and its robust economy. Despite this, China has prioritized its stance on Taiwan, appreciating Macron’s independent position on the matter. During Macron’s visit to China last year, he emphasized France’s independent stance on Taiwan, which China respects. This stance might explain why Xi chose France over Germany for his visit. Macron will likely attempt to dissuade Xi from retaliating over the EV investigation, possibly by discussing import duties on French cognac and agricultural goods. France also aims to advance discussions on opening the Chinese market to its agricultural exports and resolving issues related to intellectual property rights in the French cosmetic industry. Additionally, during Xi’s visit, China may announce an order for approximately 50 Airbus aircraft.

    China cannot afford increasing restrictions in the European market, especially considering the potential tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), which would pose significant challenges for Beijing. According to Rhodium Group, EU imports of EVs from China reached $11.5 billion last year. Thus, China is aiming to mitigate tensions with its visit to Europe. In addition to visiting France, Xi will also travel to Serbia and Hungary during his Euro Trip. China has proposed deepening law enforcement ties with Hungary, expanding their relationship beyond the economic sphere to include a security cooperation agreement, raising concerns in other EU countries. Hungary already serves as Huawei’s largest base outside China, and it will soon host carmaker BYD’s first European factory. Orbán, the Prime Minister of Hungary, has consistently supported China in international forums and opposed EU motions critical of China on human rights issues. The trip also includes Serbia, a state in Europe known for its favorable stance towards Russia and China. Efforts will be made to further strengthen the China-Serbia relationship. While the outcome of the trip remains unclear as both parties focus on their interests, Xi’s visit will contribute to the European Parliament election.