Tag: World

  • What Led Turkey to Suspend Trade with Israel?

    What Led Turkey to Suspend Trade with Israel?

    The encampment protests for Gaza are making huge waves around the globe. Western nations like the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are witnessing the protests on a large scale, and countries like Colombia are openly starting to criticize Israel. On this occasion, there was criticism that many protests are not visible from Muslim countries, especially from the Middle East. However, now Turkey, which claims Ottoman hereditary so proudly under the Islamist politician Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is taking strong actions against Israel by halting all trades with Israel and accusing it of humanitarian tragedy in Gaza. Turkey’s decision is a huge and brave step, considering Turkey had an amicable relationship with Israel and is a NATO member and ally of the United States. Historically, Turkey recognized Israel when they announced independence, while many Muslim countries were reluctant to do so. The fruitful relationship started to sour during the Erdogan regime and was taken to its lowest level by Turkey’s imposition of a trade embargo, overthrowing trade agreements, and foreign relations in the area.

    Turkey’s trade ministry announced late on Thursday that export and import transactions related to Israel have been stopped, covering all products. The ministry emphasized that these measures would be strictly and decisively implemented until the Israeli government ensures an uninterrupted and sufficient flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Turkey’s trade ministry had previously announced restrictions on exports to Israel in early April, halting the export of iron and steel products and construction equipment. The decision has a huge economic impact because as of 2023, the two countries had a trade volume of $6.8 billion. This trade embargo by Turkey will also cause harm to the Turkish economy, as Turkey’s exports mostly go to western countries with close ties to Israel, and Israel itself is a top importer of Turkish goods. And as expected, Israel drew strong criticism of Turkey’s decision. Israel’s foreign minister, Israel Katz, accused Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, of acting like a “Dictator” in response to the reported restrictions. This dispute is likely to deepen tensions between the two former close allies. Katz accused Erdoğan of “Violating agreements by obstructing ports for Israeli imports and exports” alleging that he disregards the interests of Turkish citizens and businessmen, and ignores international trade agreements. Katz also stated that Israel would attempt to replace any lost products through local production and imports from other countries. Last month, he had criticized Erdoğan for publicizing his latest meeting in Istanbul with the head of Hamas’s politburo, Ismail Haniyeh.

    The reason behind Turkey’s decision, or Erdogan’s decision, is political. Turkey knows this action could sour relationships with Israel and, consequently, the West. However, the West will not take any action against Turkey now. There are several reasons for this. There is global sentiment against civilian killings in Gaza, which is also present in the West. Following the killings of aid workers and university protests, Western media are not actively supporting Israel anymore; they are maintaining a neutral stance instead of siding against Hamas, the terrorist organization responsible for brutal killings in Israel and taking hostages. This shift in Western mindset is providing Erdogan with a sense of security, as there is support for Turkey’s decision among Western populations. It’s evident that there is significant sentiment among Muslims worldwide in support of fellow Muslims in Palestine, and there is also resentment toward wealthy Gulf countries that have not taken significant steps to support Palestine, despite their close ties with Israel and the US. Erdogan can leverage this sentiment to portray himself as a true Ottoman leader, as he desires. As a seasoned politician, Erdogan can navigate this sentiment to push his agenda of Islamism In Turkey, especially as the country’s opposition makes progress and wins elections. He sees an opportunity and frames it well, presenting it at the opportune moment. So, this action will definitely impact Turkish domestic politics where Erdogan faces challenges.

    Israel’s revenge mission for the deaths of 1,136 Israeli citizens on October 7th and the taking of about 250 people hostage shows no signs of stopping nearby. The Israeli military is currently in Gaza and has bombarded the territory, resulting in the deaths of more than 34,000 people, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. This situation has provided many politicians with leverage. Netanyahu doesn’t need to worry about protests against him, Iran has taken advantage by increasing calls for reform after Mahsini’s death, and European right-wing politicians have found an opportunity to showcase the increased Muslim population in Europe. Additionally, Turkey is now seeking an opportunity to quell discontent against Erdogan and gain an advantage over the opposition by increasing solidarity with Palestinian Muslims. So, everyone benefits except for the common people who lose their lives and property. Turkey’s decision to impose a trade embargo will not have any impact on Israel or the new world order; however, it is a win for Turkey and Erdogan.

  • Does The LDP’s Loss In Elections Signal For Kishida’s Future?

    Does The LDP’s Loss In Elections Signal For Kishida’s Future?

    As he assumed office in late 2021, Fumio Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan and president of the country’s ruling conservative party, the LDP, made promises of a “New Capitalism” and a stronger Japan abroad. He pledged solutions to the country’s demographic crisis and was widely welcomed on international stages as a strong leader from Japan following Shinzo Abe. However, now he finds himself navigating a sea of struggles, with no visible improvement in the economic and social situation, and the LDP experiencing a significant loss in crucial by-elections within their party strongholds. The main opposition party, the CDP, has won three seats formerly held by the LDP. The result is widely interpreted as voter anger and punishment for the LDP’s involvement in a years-long corruption saga. These losses coincide with Kishida’s struggle to rebuild support for his cabinet amidst voter discontent over inflation and the scandal. The defeats may dissuade him from calling a general election prior to the party leadership vote in September, where there’s a risk of him being replaced.

    Over the past two weeks, international media outlets have been celebrating Fumio Kishida for his efforts to foster collaboration among East Asian countries and his advocacy for the US’s global leadership role. Kishida may have found reassurance in the recent suggestion by US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell that he, along with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, should be considered joint recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize for their endeavors to confront their countries’ turbulent historical legacies and present a united front against nuclear-armed North Korea. Additionally, Prime Minister Kishida received acclaim for his speech to the US Congress. His address was met with cheers, marking him as only the second Japanese leader to speak before a joint session of Congress, following in the footsteps of Shinzo Abe. However, after his return to Tokyo following a productive summit with Joe Biden, Japan’s Prime Minister has encountered strong domestic political challenges. The yen’s plummet against the dollar, the persistent cost-of-living crisis, and uncertainties surrounding the funding of policies aimed at tackling Japan’s low birth rate and its most significant military buildup since the end of the war further exacerbate the situation.

    However, the most significant debate arises from a funding scandal, initially disclosed last year, which has emerged as a focal point for public outrage amid increasing doubts regarding Prime Minister Kishida’s capacity to lead the LDP to success in the upcoming lower house elections. Although the election is not scheduled for well over a year, the scandal, involving 85 LDP lawmakers who were discovered to have funneled undisclosed profits from ticket sales for party events into slush funds, has left Kishida with little room to maneuver. The party’s response to the slush fund debacle has consistently failed to convince the public, and there is scant reason to believe that planned reforms would reverse this trend. Efforts to mend the damage inflicted by the funding scandal, along with promises of reforming political funding regulations, have also proven ineffective in mitigating criticism from the media. Despite the punishment of 39 LDP lawmakers, Kishida evaded censure despite evidence indicating that his own faction had similarly underreported ticket sale, highlighting apparent double standards that risk inciting a factional power struggle, potentially leaving him politically wounded as he endeavors to secure his party’s endorsement as LDP president this autumn.

    The defeat in Shimane, along with victories for non-LDP candidates in other by-elections on Sunday, may ignite an early challenge to Kishida’s leadership as the party prepares for presidential elections in September, where the winner is automatically appointed prime minister. Despite generally positive feedback regarding his summit with Joe Biden earlier this month, three April surveys indicated that approval for Kishida’s cabinet fell well below the 30 percent threshold often considered a danger zone for Japanese premiers. Despite its robust economy, the country is experiencing turmoil within its political sphere. Now is a critical moment for Japan to confront these challenges head-on. Once the world’s second-largest economy, Japan risks being surpassed by numerous countries in the upcoming decades, which will undoubtedly impact the current trajectory of the nation. Therefore, these are valuable times for Japanese politicians to take action.

  • 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 Are Trade Barrier Reforms Progressing In Central Asian States?

    How Are Trade Barrier Reforms Progressing In Central Asian States?

    The economy of the United States is its greatest asset. Instead of relying solely on its military, it utilizes the hegemony of the dollar and its economic might to forge partnerships with other countries. The United States’ financial contributions led to a West-leaning, communist-averse Europe after World War II. Similarly, it spurred the resurgence of East Asia by injecting capital and ensuring the market. The United States’ economic interests have played a significant role in mitigating full-scale conflicts in the Middle East. This strategy, centered on leveraging financial resources and markets to build alliances, is now expanding to encompass Central Asia. Central Asia, once hindered by the dominant influence of the Soviet Union and Russia, is now becoming more accessible to the United States. The US initiative in the region seeks to foster a market conducive to the prosperity of Central Asian states and to attract American investment, thereby strengthening ties with the United States. 

    Central Asian states have long been characterized by trade barriers, bureaucratic hurdles, and regulatory complexities, greatly impeding economic progress. However, steps are currently being taken to tackle these challenges, representing a significant advancement towards creating a unified regional market similar to the streamlined documentation and policy frameworks found in Europe. Promoting the establishment of such a unified Central Asian market and facilitating smooth trade and service flow are fundamental elements of a regional economic strategy championed by the United States, known as the B5+1 initiative. Amidst a flurry of diplomatic engagements in mid-April, Central Asian leaders are actively exploring the potential of the B5+1 initiative. Launched in March, the B5+1 initiative assigns the five Central Asian nations, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, with the responsibility of spearheading efforts to promote regional free trade and enhance export opportunities.

    In recent times, geopolitical analysts have turned their attention to the growing interactions among Central Asian countries, spurred by the diminishing influence of Russia and the stagnating economic growth of  China . Notably, a multitude of discussions and agreements have unfolded in the region, often without the presence of Russia. A significant event occurred on April 18, when Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev and Tajik President Emomali Rahmon signed 28 interstate agreements spanning political, economic, and social realms. Noteworthy among these were two agreements aimed at bolstering trade between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, with a focus on simplifying customs procedures at border checkpoints and safeguarding industrial property rights. Preceding Mirziyoyev’s visit, a joint investment forum in Dushanbe drew around 600 officials and business leaders from both nations. They expressed keen interest in collaborative ventures, particularly within the mining and renewable energy sectors, and sought to expand trade. Initiatives such as establishing a free trade zone at the Oybek-Fotekhobod border crossing and developing a logistics hub at Andarkhan were emphasized. Additionally, plans were unveiled to streamline permit requirements for freight-carrying trucks crossing the Tajik-Uzbek border. Despite bilateral trade reaching $505 million in 2023, officials aspire to elevate it to $2 billion in the near future. This ambition was echoed by Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev during his agreements signing with Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov, underscoring the significance of facilitating cross-border movement and enhancing the exchange of manufactured goods. Subsequent to discussions with Japarov, Tokayev engaged in talks with Uzbekistan’s Mirziyoyev, likely focusing on regional trade dynamics. While details of these discussions were scarce, it was apparent that bilateral relations and regional cooperation were prioritized. However, challenges persist, notably between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, where trade turnover declined significantly due to ongoing border disputes and unmarked border areas. Additionally, Turkmenistan poses a significant obstacle to efforts aimed at promoting connectivity, with issues such as a severe shortage of qualified personnel hindering international cooperation within contractual frameworks. Nonetheless, Ashgabat’s interest in expanding regional trade appears substantial, as evidenced by the sizable delegation it dispatched to the inaugural B5+1 conference in Almaty.

    Recent diplomatic initiatives seem to have drawn the Kremlin’s attention, as it expresses concern that increased trade facilitation in Central Asia could lead to the expansion of commercial networks that bypass Russia. The ongoing developments aimed at streamlining trade processes in Central Asia appear to unsettle Moscow.  Nevertheless, landlocked countries with tough terrain require substantial investments in infrastructure to connect with the global economy. They traditionally rely on Russia, and China made a lot of road and rail networks under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It is unlikely that Russia, China, and Iran will cooperate with the trade union in this context. So the US could potentially influence countries such as Pakistan and the Southern Caucasus countries, which have aligned with European interests. These will lead to huge shifts in the entire asia geopolitical landscape. So the Impact of B5+1 will grow beyond Central Asia.

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

    How to Understand the United States Military Exercises in China Seas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • How Israel’s Gaza Attack Revealed New Global Order

    How Israel’s Gaza Attack Revealed New Global Order

    There is no doubt that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world order is led and directed by the Mighty United States. However, after three decades of US supremacy, the last three years have seen considerable shifts in the United States’ supremacy in the global order. As the Gaza attack and Ukraine war continue without seeming a possible end, some points are clear: the UN is an ineffective waste of money, the United States can no longer participate in direct wars, Russia appears weak, China can only fight with words, and Muslim solidarity among nations for Palestine has waned. Yes, this is the new world order. Even the policymakers are confused about the new developments around the world. The Gaza conflict is actually shedding light on the shaken world order. And this new world order is curious with some important happenings that could never previously be expected. The United States is not vetoing the resolution against Israel. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other important Muslim countries are no longer interested in Palestine. While the embassy is attacked in Syria, Iran Remains calm.

    Every war reshapes history and presents significant challenges to international relations. Two days after the Hamas massacre in Israel that ignited the conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the region would be reshaped to Israel’s advantage. Six months later, nobody believes they’ve lost yet. However, these events pose challenges to international relations. Interestingly, the United States is now taking a strong stance against Israel’s aggression, demanding a ceasefire and withdrawing from vetoing the UN Security Council resolution. While this stance doesn’t directly impact the relationship, it generates discontent among political figures and is also considered part of an internal issue in Israel. As a country deeply intertwined with the money and politics of the United States, experts suggest that the United States’ recent actions reflect discontent stemming from long-standing rule and corruption allegations against Netanyahu 

    And another important development is the freezing of the progress of the United States mission in the Middle East to unite Sunni Arab countries and Israel, which initially appeared successful. It was a significant achievement by Donald Trump, leading to successful agreements between many Arab countries such as the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco with Israel. This movement is undoubtedly part of the evolving agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel, resulting in the relationship between Jews and Sunni Islamic countries reaching an all-time high. However, Israel’s Gaza attack has unsettled the populace in the region, causing countries to distance themselves from further progress in building relationships with Israel. Additionally, there is discontent among Turkey and Egypt who have already established relationships with Israel. Iran, the sponsor of Hamas, is not only gaining support from Shia countries like Lebanon and Syria but also from the global Muslim population, thus strengthening its position in international politics. Despite making strong statements, Iran has not taken any action to de-escalate tensions in Gaza, actions they are capable of. Furthermore, Pakistan, another country seeking domination in Islamic countries and the largest ally of the United States, is becoming increasingly irrelevant in international politics.

    Israel’s Gaza attack has also been seized upon as a golden opportunity for Russia, which is facing humiliation in Ukraine. The Ukraine war has receded from the main headlines, allowing Russia to present double standards to Western countries. However, many doubt the capabilities of Russia. Even their closest ally, China, the globally overrated power, appears to be keeping its distance from the latest developments. Additionally, countries like Brazil, South Africa, and Spain have made headlines by advocating peace in various forums. India, previously distant from Israel and the US, has conventionally supported Palestine and a two-state solution. However, it is now emerging as one of the biggest supporters of Israel, with the friendship between Modi and Netanyahu strengthening this stance.

    No doubt, the United States remains the sole superpower in the world. Russia, China, or any other nation cannot match the effectiveness of the Soviet Union in foreign policies and military strategy development. However, recent incidents mark a weakness in the United States’ political strategy. US diplomacy is experiencing continuous setbacks, particularly during the Biden era. They struggle to direct Israel, influence Europe, confront adversaries, and execute effective campaigns. Biden has failed to achieve his aims in renovating political relationships damaged during the Trump era. The new global order exposes the weaknesses of the United States. Additionally, the Middle East is transitioning from an era defined by religion to one driven by business.

  • UN’s Surprise Selection: Saudi Arabia to Head Women’s Rights Commission

    UN’s Surprise Selection: Saudi Arabia to Head Women’s Rights Commission

    It is indeed true that under the leadership of Mohammed bin Salman, there have been some advancements in women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Women are now allowed to drive vehicles independently, and they can enter public spaces without wearing head coverings. However, despite these seemingly progressive decisions, the irony remains glaring. Saudi Arabia, notorious for its oppressive anti-women laws, has been chosen to lead the UN Commission on the Status of Women uncontested. This decision has drawn condemnation from human rights organizations due to the kingdom’s abysmal track record on women’s rights.

    Abdulaziz Alwasil, the Saudi ambassador to the UN, was unanimously elected as the chair of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) during its annual meeting in New York. With no opposing candidates and no dissent among the attendees, Alwasil’s appointment was met with approval from the group of Asia-Pacific states on the commission. When Antonio Manuel Lagdameo, the outgoing chair and Filipino envoy to the UN, sought objections from the 45 members present, the chamber remained silent, prompting Lagdameo to declare, “I hear no objection. It is so decided”.

    Traditionally, a country holds the chairmanship for two years; however, pressure from other members of the Asia group led the Philippines to split its tenure and pass the position to another country after just one year. While Bangladesh was initially expected to assume the role, Saudi Arabia intervened late in the process and lobbied for the chairmanship, widely interpreted as an effort to enhance the kingdom’s reputation.

    However, human rights advocates, who do not receive funding from Arab sources, were quick to highlight the irony of the Commission on the Status of Women being led by a country where the disparity between men’s and women’s rights, even on paper, is so pronounced.

    In Saudi Arabia, women are still obligated to seek approval from a male guardian before marrying, and wives are anticipated to adhere to their husbands’ directives in a “Reasonable Manner”. The provision of financial assistance from husbands is conditional upon the wife’s adherence, and neglecting certain obligations, such as declining sexual relations or not residing in the marital home without a “Legitimate Excuse”, may lead to the cessation of support.

    These laws provide insight into the restrictive nature of Saudi Arabia’s legal system, which is grounded in Sharia law and often viewed as detrimental to women’s rights in more progressive societies. While some Muslim women may assert that Sharia law ensures their safety and satisfaction, those who challenge its tenets may face severe consequences from authorities. Indeed, there have been numerous cases of women seeking asylum simply for expressing dissenting views on social media platforms.

    Last year, UN Women, the UN’s agency for gender equality, reported a worsening of gender disparities worldwide, citing examples from Afghanistan, China, Poland, the United States, and beyond. The organization projected that it could require 286 years to eliminate the global gender gaps in legal protections for women and girls. Moreover, many are concerned about the increasing trend of rolling back women’s rights, even in developing countries, which adds to the discomfort surrounding the decision to appoint Saudi Arabia.

    Sherine Tadros, the head of Amnesty International’s New York office, emphasized that Saudi Arabia will assume the chair next year, coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration, a significant framework for advancing women’s rights globally. “Whoever holds the chair, which is currently Saudi Arabia, holds a pivotal position to shape the planning, decisions, assessments, and forward-looking initiatives in a crucial year for the commission”, Tadros stated. “While Saudi Arabia is now leading, its own track record on women’s rights falls far short of the commission’s mandate”.

    Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) UN director, Louis Charbonneau, criticized the choice as well, saying, “A nation that jails its women for standing up for their rights has no business heading the UN’s main platform for gender equality and women’s rights. The Saudi authorities ought to show that this classification was not wholly unjustified by freeing all incarcerated advocates for women’s rights, doing away with male guardianship, and guaranteeing women’s total equality with men”. 

    Despite the ineffectiveness of these UN-based organizations and forums, it is alarming that nations have not expressed concern or opposition to Saudi Arabia’s bid. This lack of action is not limited to the UN; even in highly prominent events such as the bidding for the 2034 FIFA World Cup, there has been no challenge to Saudi Arabia’s bid, despite criticism of the country’s mistreatment of labor rights. Logic of some selections is very illogical, and will lead to many doubts, like Qatar’s selection for running the World cup football. Money decides the winner, as always. And that brings the Hope Taliban Ruling Afghanistan will not be assigned in the future.

  • Rise of Political Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia: An Analysis

    Rise of Political Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia: An Analysis

    Malaysia and Indonesia, both predominantly Muslim nations with secular governance, have charted unique paths in history, differing from many other Islamic countries. Their divergence traces back to colonial eras, with British and Dutch rule shaping them differently from Ottoman-controlled territories. Even after achieving independence, while they instituted specific Islamic frameworks – Indonesia even embracing Islamic Sharia in certain areas – they generally maintained a more liberal outlook compared to Arab nations. However, in recent years, there has been a noticeable rise in the influence of Islamic parties in both countries, signaling a shift from the waning of anti-colonial nationalist movements. This trend emerged prominently in Indonesia from the early 2000s and has more recently gained traction in Malaysia. Although these parties may not hold unilateral authority, they wield significant sway over the public.

    The intertwining of religion and politics is becoming more pronounced in the region. Islamist politics is gaining significant traction in Malaysia, with PAS’s influence transcending its traditional support base. Especially in rural Malay areas, PAS has emerged as the favored choice for many Muslims. Strengthening its hold in the northern states and the east coast, PAS is also gaining ground in other parts of Peninsular Malaysia. This shift towards Islamist parties like PAS can be attributed, in part, to internal turmoil within UMNO, Malaysia’s oldest political party, including scandals such as the 1MDB controversy involving former Prime Minister Najib Razak. For the Malay Bumiputera community, race and religion stand as core values that have long guided PAS since its inception. There is a growing sense of concern that Malay voters are increasingly leaning towards conservatism, embracing PAS’s agenda of Islamization and advocacy for Shariah laws.

    After Malaysia’s 2022 General Election, PAS emerged as arguably the most potent individual party at the federal level. It now commands 43 out of 222 seats in parliament, surpassing the influence of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the multiracial-centric Democratic Action Party (DAP), and even UMNO. Historically, UMNO, a Malay nationalist party, held sway over Malaysian politics from 1957 to 2018. On the federal stage, PAS spearheads the opposition coalition PN alongside the Malay nationalist party Bersatu. In the six state elections of 2023, PAS achieved significant victories, securing 105 out of 127 contested seats. It orchestrated a clean sweep of all 32 state seats in Terengganu under the PN banner, clinching 27, while the remaining five went to Bersatu. Presently, PAS governs four states—Terengganu, Kelantan, Kedah, and Perlis – in the north, known as the Malay heartland.

    Fueled by its recent political successes, the conservative party is setting its sights on forming the government in the upcoming General Election. Divisive Malaysian politics have exacerbated societal fractures. In the Malaysian context, the majority comprises the Malay Bumiputera, who are predominantly Muslim. This reality underscores PAS’s unwavering stance that leaders in Malaysian politics must be Malay-Muslims, as they represent the dominant demographic in the country. PAS remains resolute in this position.

    In Indonesia, a nation more diverse than Malaysia, the mission of Islamic parties focuses heavily on fostering Islamic identity within the state. The National Awakening Party and the Progressive National Mandate Party are prominent Islamic parties in Indonesia, advocating for political Islam. And there are many small parties, They have a limited regional presence, particularly in Aceh, where Sharia law is implemented. These parties have achieved varying levels of success in terms of seats won and membership.

    The prominent party, The National Awakening Party (PKB) was established in 1999 by the traditionalist Muslim community in Indonesia, with significant overlap with the membership of Nahdlatul Ulama. Described as a nationalist Muslim party, PKB promotes inclusive and nationalist principles while upholding the Pancasila doctrine. In the legislative assembly, the party holds 68 out of 580 seats, with a vote percentage of 10%.

    Indonesia boasts larger Islamic territories and population, dissenting voices foresee an impending demand for Sharia law in additional regions. They perceive the recent electoral defeat of figures like Anies and Muhaimin Isakander in the presidential election as part of the ongoing Jokowi wave. These proponents argue that the current 10% representation could burgeon in the future, leading to the proliferation of Islamic politics across more regions.

    In the region, Muslims are devout yet also seek prosperity. Political Islam has often relied on instilling fear, anxiety, and the perception of Islam being threatened. While fear may resonate with some of the younger generation, hope tends to be more appealing. Malaysia and Indonesia, with their unique identities among Islamic nations, have pursued more modern and secular political approaches. In contrast, Islamic Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are gradually relaxing strict Islamic rules. Meanwhile, Islamic factions are gaining influence in the democracies of Malaysia and Indonesia. It’s clear that if these factions were to govern independently, it would likely result in a significant loss or alteration of the national identity of these states.