Historic China-Canada Trade Reset Signals a Shifting Global Order

Historic China-Canada Trade Reset Signals a Shifting Global Order

    Friday, January 16, 2026   No comments

 In a landmark diplomatic and economic breakthrough, Canada and China have agreed to slash bilateral tariffs on key goods—including electric vehicles (EVs), canola, and seafood—marking what Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called a “historic reset” of relations strained for nearly a decade. The agreement, finalized during Carney’s state visit to Beijing—the first by a Canadian prime minister since 2017—comes not only in the wake of long-standing trade tensions but also amid growing global resistance to America’s increasingly unilateral economic coercion.

The Enduring Fallout of Trump-Era Protectionism—and Its Escalation

The roots of today’s China-Canada trade thaw lie in the turbulence unleashed by the Trump administration’s aggressive tariff regime. Beginning in 2018, Washington imposed sweeping duties on Chinese goods, triggering retaliatory measures from Beijing and setting off a chain reaction that ensnared allied economies like Canada’s. When Ottawa aligned with U.S.-led sanctions on Chinese EVs in 2024—imposing a blanket 100% tariff—Beijing responded by targeting Canadian agricultural exports, particularly canola, with tariffs soaring to 84%. The fallout was swift: by 2025, China’s imports of Canadian goods had dropped by 10.4%, hitting farmers and rural communities hardest.

Now, both nations are stepping back from the brink. Under the new deal, Canada will allow up to 49,000 Chinese EVs annually at a reduced 6.1% most-favored-nation tariff, while China will lower its canola seed tariff to approximately 15%. The changes take effect March 1, 2026, and are expected to unlock billions in trade across agriculture, fisheries, and clean tech sectors.

But this reset is not just about mending past wounds—it’s a strategic recalibration in response to a broader American policy trend that threatens global economic stability.

New U.S. Tariffs on Iran Partners Backfire Before They Even Take Effect

Adding fuel to this realignment is the Biden administration’s recently announced plan to impose 25% punitive tariffs on any country that conducts significant trade with Iran—a move ostensibly aimed at isolating Tehran but one that risks alienating two of the world’s largest economies: China and India. Both nations are among Iran’s top trading partners, with China alone importing over $20 billion in Iranian oil annually under long-term energy agreements, often settled in yuan or rupees to bypass U.S. financial controls.

Rather than compelling compliance, this latest U.S. sanction threat is accelerating a counter-movement. Countries unwilling to sacrifice lucrative partnerships with Iran—or bow to Washington’s extraterritorial demands—are deepening ties with China as a hedge against American economic coercion. The Canada-China deal is just the latest example. Similar overtures are already underway from Gulf states like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which—while maintaining security ties with the U.S.—are quietly expanding yuan-denominated trade, joint infrastructure projects, and technology partnerships with Beijing.

As one Asian diplomat recently confided: “If doing business with half the world means being punished by Washington, then we must build alternatives that don’t depend on it.”

Prime Minister Carney made this shift explicit. Speaking after his meeting with President Xi Jinping, he warned that “the architecture, the multilateral system is being eroded—undercut.” His reference to a “new global order” reflects a sober recognition: the era of unquestioned U.S. economic leadership is ending—not because of Chinese aggression, but because of American overreach.

President Xi reinforced this vision, stating: “A divided world cannot address the common challenges facing humanity. The solution lies in upholding and practicing true multilateralism.” Notably, both leaders pledged to expand cooperation in green technology, critical minerals, and food security—sectors central to future economic sovereignty.

Carney set an ambitious goal: a 50% increase in Canadian exports to China by 2030. Achieving it would not only revive rural economies but also position Canada as a pragmatic player in a multipolar trade system—one where loyalty is earned through partnership, not enforced through tariffs.

The Self-Defeating Logic of Economic Coercion

The irony is stark. By wielding tariffs as weapons—first against China, now against any nation engaging with Iran—the United States is not strengthening its global position but weakening it. Each new sanction pushes traditional allies and neutral economies closer to Beijing’s orbit, not out of ideological alignment, but out of economic necessity and strategic self-preservation.

The Canada-China reset is not an isolated event. It is a harbinger. As more nations conclude that reliance on U.S. markets comes with unacceptable political risk, they will seek alternatives. And China—offering market access without political strings—is ready to fill the void. In the long run, America’s tariff wars may succeed only in hastening the very multipolar world it fears.

China’s “Justice Mission 2025” Drills Signal Strategic Shift Around Taiwan

China’s “Justice Mission 2025” Drills Signal Strategic Shift Around Taiwan

    Tuesday, December 30, 2025   No comments

In a powerful display of military coordination and strategic messaging, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has concluded the second day of its expansive “Justice Mission 2025” joint military drills encircling Taiwan. The maneuvers, which began on December 29, represent far more than routine training—they constitute a calibrated assertion of Beijing’s resolve to deter “Taiwan independence” and block foreign interference, particularly from the United States and Japan.

The exercises, orchestrated by the PLA Eastern Theater Command, brought together integrated forces from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Rocket Force. Live-fire drills on Tuesday morning targeted waters north of Taiwan, followed by simulated joint strikes to the south in the afternoon. According to official reports, every rocket launched from long-range modularized rocket systems struck its intended target—a demonstration not only of precision but of psychological pressure.

“This series of exercises demonstrates our strong capability to seize comprehensive control of the Taiwan Strait,” said Zhang Chi, a professor at China’s National Defense University. He emphasized that the drills combined “blockade and strike” operations across multiple domains—sea, air, land, and cyber—to enforce what Beijing describes as “multidimensional isolation” of the island.

A Three-Tiered Operational Framework

Zhang outlined the spatial architecture of the drills in three concentric arcs:

1. Nearshore enforcement: China Coast Guard (CCG) vessels patrolled contested waters near Matsu and Wuqiu, enforcing maritime law and signaling administrative control.
2. Encirclement of Taiwan: Naval and air assets pressed closer to the island, overseeing critical sea lanes and chokepoints, effectively disrupting civilian air traffic—941 flights were reportedly affected on Monday alone.
3. Eastern theater projection: In the Pacific-facing waters east of Taiwan, the PLA conducted anti-submarine operations, air superiority drills, and amphibious raids using elite forces and unmanned systems, underscoring its readiness to interdict external reinforcements.

A provocative “Throat-Choking” poster released by the CCG depicted the interception of a Taiwanese cargo ship allegedly carrying U.S.-made HIMARS rocket launchers—highlighting Beijing’s focus on cutting off military supply lines as part of its coercive strategy.

Political Messaging and Domestic Repercussions

The timing of the drills is no coincidence. They follow a major U.S. arms sale to Taiwan worth $11.1 billion and escalating rhetoric from Taipei under President Lai Ching-te, whose approval ratings have slumped—52.2% of Taiwanese now express dissatisfaction with his leadership, according to a December poll.

Meanwhile, China is coupling military pressure with diplomatic outreach. Song Tao, head of the Communist Party’s Taiwan Affairs Office, met with nearly 200 Taiwanese business leaders during the drills, urging them to oppose “Taiwan independence” and support peaceful reunification. This dual-track approach—“tough on the tough, soft on the soft”—reflects Beijing’s evolving Taiwan policy, aimed at dividing pro-independence elites from the broader public and business community.

Despite the scale of the exercises, Washington’s response has been conspicuously muted. When asked by CBS News, the Pentagon offered “nothing to say,” while former U.S. President Donald Trump downplayed the drills as routine, saying, “They’ve been doing this for 20 years.”

But analysts suggest this restraint may mask strategic realism. “The mainland not only has vast numerical superiority, it now has qualitative superiority across the board—in weaponry and probably in training as well,” noted Lyle Goldstein of the U.S.-based think tank Defense Priorities.

Japanese media, including Nikkei and Jiji Press, interpreted the drills as a direct warning to Tokyo not to intervene in any future cross-strait contingency. A senior Japanese defense official acknowledged the exercises as a serious escalation, pledging to “stay vigilant.”

The Shadow of Taipei 101

Adding symbolic weight to the maneuvers, the PLA released drone footage on Monday showing Taipei 101—the island’s iconic skyscraper—under the shadow of Chinese military aircraft. The image resurrected a haunting prediction made a year ago by former Taiwanese security chief Su Chi: that if PLA jets ever photographed Taipei 101 at night, Taiwan would be powerless to stop them.

Now, that scenario appears less like prophecy and more like practice.

While Beijing insists the drills are defensive and aimed solely at separatists, their scope and synchronization suggest a rehearsal for real-world contingencies—including blockade, amphibious assault, and rapid decapitation strikes. As Professor Li Haidong of China Foreign Affairs University noted, “The U.S. and Japan know full well that achieving a military victory against China in the Taiwan Strait today is unrealistic.”

The “Justice Mission 2025” may not herald imminent invasion, but it undeniably marks a new threshold in China’s campaign to normalize military dominance over the Taiwan Strait—reshaping regional power dynamics while testing the limits of American and allied resolve. 

US precendent

This escalation around Taiwan must also be viewed in the broader context of U.S. foreign policy, which has repeatedly employed military pressure and coercive tactics against sovereign nations—most recently in Venezuela, where the U.S. government has intensified sanctions, conducted naval drills off the Caribbean coast, and openly supported opposition figures in efforts to undermine the Maduro administration. Washington justifies such actions under the guise of promoting democracy or countering authoritarianism, yet it rarely faces meaningful international consequences for violating principles of non-intervention. From China’s perspective, this double standard is glaring: if the United States can openly threaten, isolate, and destabilize a recognized sovereign state like Venezuela—without renouncing its own adherence to the “One China” policy—then Beijing contends it is well within its rights to treat Taiwan not as an independent actor, but as an internal matter. After all, every U.S. administration since 1979 has formally acknowledged that Taiwan is part of China, even while deepening unofficial ties. China thus frames its military posturing not as aggression, but as a proportionate and legitimate response to what it sees as American hypocrisy—using force to uphold sovereignty in one context while undermining it in another.

Media Review: Analysis of U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, Russian Actions in Ukraine, and China’s Stance on Taiwan

Media Review: Analysis of U.S. Intervention in Venezuela, Russian Actions in Ukraine, and China’s Stance on Taiwan

    Wednesday, December 17, 2025   No comments

As geopolitical tensions rise across the globe, the situations in Venezuela, Ukraine, and Taiwan serve as focal points for the strategic maneuvers of the United States, Russia, and China. Each of these regions reflects unique historical alliances and challenges, revealing profound implications on the global stage.

In Venezuela, the U.S. has embarked on a path that raises alarm bells not just for Latin America, but for the international community at large. Under the Trump administration, military deployments to the Caribbean have intensified, signaling a potential intervention in a country already strained by political and economic turmoil. The announcement that Venezuelan airspace would be “closed” evokes memories of earlier U.S. military operations, such as in Iraq. This time, however, the rhetoric suggests a dual purpose: while the U.S. claims it is targeting drug trafficking, many experts and observers sense a deeper agenda aimed at regime change, particularly focused on toppling President Nicolás Maduro.

Historically, Maduro has relied heavily on the support of his allies, notably Russia and China. Yet, in recent months, that support has waned considerably. Both Moscow and Beijing, once stalwart backers of Venezuela’s socialist government, appear to have shifted to a more symbolic stance. Their public statements of support lack the concrete military or financial assistance that Maduro might need during this hour of crisis. As the U.S. steps up its military activities, including naval forces and airstrikes, Russia finds itself navigating its own daunting challenges in Ukraine. The demands of that conflict have stretched Russian resources thin, diverting attention and funding away from its commitments in Latin America. Consequently, there is little incentive for Russia to risk further sanctions that would come from overtly supporting Maduro’s increasingly isolated regime.

Conversely, China's approach to the situation diverges sharply. While it continues to publicly oppose U.S. interference in Venezuela, Beijing has refrained from taking significant steps to defend Maduro. Instead, China seems focused on stabilizing its own economic interests rather than embroiling itself in a conflict that could jeopardize its fragile relationship with the United States. The reality is that China’s influence in Venezuela hinges less on unwavering ideological commitment and more on strategic economic calculations. By reducing new lending and prioritizing the recovery of past debts, China signals a pragmatic shift away from outright support for Maduro’s fragile government.

Meanwhile, the situation in Taiwan adds another dimension to this geopolitical puzzle. China, under Xi Jinping, remains adamant about its claims over Taiwan, treating it as a breakaway province rather than a separate entity. Beijing’s approach is defined by a readiness to utilize military posturing to assert its sovereignty, contrasting sharply with its reluctance to take a militaristic stance in Latin America. The dynamics in Taiwan reflect a calculated strategy aimed at consolidating its territorial claims, even as it navigates relationships with other nations, including the United States.

The contrasts among these events underscore the complexities of international relations where military commitments, regional stability, and economic interests collide. The U.S. appears intent on reinvigorating its influence in Latin America through potentially aggressive actions, while Russia's focus on Ukraine hinders its ability to support its allies elsewhere. China, too, must balance its ambitions, choosing when to assert its power and when to practice restraint.

As the world watches these developments unfold, the implications extend far beyond the borders of Venezuela, Ukraine, or Taiwan. The actions taken—or not taken—by these major powers may redefine the landscape of global alliances and power dynamics for years to come. In this moment of uncertainty, it becomes increasingly clear that the interconnectedness of global affairs demands a nuanced understanding of the motivations and limitations of each nation involved. The stakes are high, and the potential for conflict looms large as the balance of power continues to shift in unexpected ways.

China’s Rising Role in the Middle East: Mediator, Partner, and Power Broker

China’s Rising Role in the Middle East: Mediator, Partner, and Power Broker

    Monday, December 15, 2025   No comments

In a region long dominated by U.S. influence and rife with geopolitical rivalries, China is steadily emerging as a pivotal diplomatic actor in the Middle East. The most striking evidence of this shift came in early 2023, when Beijing brokered a historic rapprochement between longtime adversaries Saudi Arabia and Iran—a move that not only stunned global observers but also signaled a new phase of Chinese engagement in West Asia. Now, more than two years later, the momentum of that breakthrough continues, with China deepening its strategic partnerships and expanding its footprint across the region.

The agreement between Riyadh and Tehran, facilitated by Chinese mediation and signed in Beijing in March 2023, marked a turning point in Middle Eastern geopolitics. For decades, the Sunni-Shia divide and proxy conflicts had fueled instability from Yemen to Syria, with Washington often taking sides or struggling to contain the fallout. China, by contrast, offered a neutral platform that prioritized dialogue over confrontation.

Recent developments confirm that this truce is not merely symbolic. On December 15, 2025, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi concluded high-level talks in Riyadh, where he affirmed China’s commitment to being Saudi Arabia’s “most trustworthy and dependable partner.” Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) echoed this sentiment, pledging to deepen cooperation in energy, artificial intelligence, and emerging technologies—sectors central to Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 economic transformation.

Crucially, both Saudi Arabia and Iran have continued to engage in direct dialogue since the Beijing-brokered deal, with trilateral meetings involving Chinese officials now becoming routine. A recent gathering of deputy foreign ministers from China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in Tehran reaffirmed the three nations’ commitment to advancing bilateral relations between Riyadh and Tehran “in all fields” and hailed the “continuous progress” in their reconciliation.

China’s influence is not just diplomatic—it is increasingly economic and technological. As the world’s largest oil importer, China has long maintained strong energy ties with Gulf states. But Beijing is now moving beyond buyer-seller dynamics to become a strategic partner in Saudi Arabia’s national development goals.

During his Riyadh visit, Wang Yi emphasized expanding cooperation in “new energy,” AI, and high-tech industries—areas where China holds competitive advantages. Riyadh, for its part, expressed support for concluding a long-pending free trade agreement between China and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which would integrate the Chinese economy more deeply into the region’s commercial architecture.

Simultaneously, China’s stance on core regional issues—particularly the Palestinian question—resonates with Arab publics and governments alike. Both China and Saudi Arabia reiterated their support for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, aligning with the Arab Peace Initiative and UN resolutions. This positions Beijing as a more sympathetic voice than Western powers, whose policies are often viewed as unbalanced.

Unlike traditional great powers, China has avoided military entanglements in the Middle East, focusing instead on economic statecraft, infrastructure investment (under the Belt and Road Initiative), and “non-interference” in domestic affairs—a principle that appeals to sovereign-minded regimes in both Riyadh and Tehran.

Beijing’s approach also carries symbolic weight. Saudi Arabia’s reaffirmation of the one-China principle—recognizing Taiwan as part of China—during Wang’s visit underscores the mutual political support that underpins this new partnership. In return, China champions Saudi leadership in regional security and backs its diplomatic outreach to Iran.

This mutual reinforcement extends to multilateral forums. Riyadh has voiced strong support for China’s plan to host the second China–Arab States Summit and the second China–GCC Summit in 2026—events that will likely showcase Beijing’s expanding role as a convener and agenda-setter in West Asia.

China’s growing clout does not come without complications. The U.S. remains the dominant security provider in the Gulf, and Washington views Beijing’s advances with growing concern. Moreover, while the Saudi-Iran détente has reduced tensions, underlying ideological and strategic differences persist, and flare-ups in places like Yemen or Lebanon could still test the durability of the rapprochement.

Nonetheless, China’s success in facilitating dialogue between bitter rivals—and sustaining that dialogue through consistent engagement—has earned it a unique form of soft power in the region. By offering an alternative to Western-dominated security frameworks and promoting economic development without political strings, Beijing is reshaping the Middle East’s diplomatic landscape.

As Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent visit demonstrates, China is no longer just a passive observer in West Asia. It is an active mediator, a trusted partner, and an increasingly indispensable player in the quest for regional stability. In doing so, it has not only advanced its own strategic interests but also redefined what great-power diplomacy looks like in the 21st century.

Iran–Pakistan Relations before and after the 12-Day Israel-Iran War

Iran–Pakistan Relations before and after the 12-Day Israel-Iran War

    Sunday, June 29, 2025   No comments

The recent 12-day war between Israel, US, and Iran has not only reshaped Middle Eastern dynamics but also sent ripples across South Asia—particularly impacting Iran's complex but evolving relationship with Pakistan. Although the two neighbors have shared a history of cautious cooperation punctuated by periods of distrust, the latest conflict appears to be accelerating a strategic convergence between Tehran and Islamabad. Just over a year ago, in January 2024, relations between Iran and Pakistan nearly derailed after a rare exchange of cross-border missile strikes. Iran targeted what it claimed were hideouts of the Sunni militant group "Jaish al-Adl" in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. Islamabad responded with airstrikes on Iranian territory, claiming to hit Baloch separatists threatening Pakistani sovereignty.

Despite this alarming escalation, diplomacy prevailed. A pivotal visit by then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in April 2024 helped cool tensions. The two countries agreed to treat their border as a “marketplace, not a battlefield,” leading to unprecedented cooperation—including intelligence sharing and a joint security operation in Balochistan. This pragmatic rapprochement was further reinforced in July and November 2024, when both nations coordinated the arrest and extradition of militants operating on either side of the border.

The 12-day war launched by Israel on Iran has reignited fears of regional destabilization. For Pakistan, the risk is not just ideological alignment with a fellow Muslim-majority state under siege; it's deeply strategic. Iran’s internal security vulnerabilities—exposed by Israeli strikes—create a vacuum that could empower militant groups like Jaish al-Adl, which have already carried out dozens of deadly attacks in Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan province. Pakistan fears that a weakened Iranian state would allow these groups to spill over into Pakistani territory, intensifying separatist violence in its own Balochistan province.

Moreover, the war has created space for greater alignment against perceived Israeli and Western aggression. Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif publicly condemned Israel, warning that Islamic nations could face similar fates if they remain divided. At the United Nations, Pakistan’s envoy described Israel's actions as a threat to the entire region and expressed full solidarity with the Iranian people.

General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s powerful Army Chief, visited Washington mid-June—his first official trip since 2001. There, he cautioned U.S. officials, including former President Donald Trump, against supporting the Israeli offensive. Munir argued that toppling Iran’s regime would lead to chaos across Balochistan and empower groups like Jaish al-Adl, which Washington itself classifies as a terrorist organization.

In private discussions, Munir also warned of the precedent that bombing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure might set. Although Israel has historically remained silent on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, Islamabad remains sensitive to parallels drawn with its own facilities.

Despite its public support for Iran, Pakistan remains interested in preserving its long-standing but strained relationship with the U.S.—particularly in light of renewed American interest sparked by the Iran conflict. Pakistan’s hope is to use this geopolitical moment to negotiate economic and strategic concessions from both Washington and Beijing.

Over the past decade, Pakistan has leaned heavily into its strategic partnership with China, especially through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Yet Islamabad understands that overdependence on China is risky, particularly amid growing U.S.-China rivalry. Diversifying economic partners while aligning diplomatically with both superpowers offers Islamabad a path to stability and leverage.

The 12-day war has likely accelerated the slow-burning strategic realignment between Iran and Pakistan. Historically divided by sectarian suspicions and divergent foreign policy priorities, the two nations now find themselves driven together by shared security concerns, declining Western engagement, and expanding Chinese influence.

This doesn’t mean a full-fledged alliance is inevitable. Deep mistrust lingers—especially over past proxy support and sectarian competition. However, as both nations face a common threat from Israeli aggression, cross-border militancy, and marginalization by Western powers, their overlapping interests may now outweigh historical grievances.

The war has made one thing clear: Iran and Pakistan can no longer afford ambiguity in their relationship. Whether driven by fear, necessity, or opportunity, they appear to be moving—cautiously but decisively—toward a more robust partnership.

China, Pakistan agree with Kabul to expand CPEC to Afghanistan

China, Pakistan agree with Kabul to expand CPEC to Afghanistan

    Wednesday, May 21, 2025   No comments

Pakistan, China, and Afghanistan agreed in a trilateral meeting in Beijing to formally extend the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan, strengthening regional connectivity under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The foreign ministers emphasized deeper cooperation in trade, infrastructure, and security, reaffirming their commitment to counterterrorism and regional stability. 

The next trilateral meeting will be held in Kabul. The talks took place during Deputy PM Ishaq Dar’s visit to China, which also addressed the recent Pakistan-India tensions and reaffirmed the strong China-Pakistan partnership.

Beijing Hosts Trilateral Meeting Between Iran, Russia, and China: Call for Ending Sanctions and Diplomatic Resolution of Nuclear Issue

Beijing Hosts Trilateral Meeting Between Iran, Russia, and China: Call for Ending Sanctions and Diplomatic Resolution of Nuclear Issue

    Friday, March 14, 2025   No comments

Beijing hosted a high-level trilateral meeting on Friday, bringing together deputy foreign ministers from Iran, Russia, and China to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and broader cooperation among the three nations. The meeting concluded with a joint statement emphasizing the necessity of lifting unilateral sanctions and advocating for political dialogue as the only viable solution to ongoing disputes.

The statement highlighted the need to end all illegal unilateral sanctions, stressing that diplomatic and political dialogue, based on mutual respect, remains the only effective and feasible approach to resolving tensions. Additionally, it called on all involved parties to address the root causes of the current situation and to refrain from sanctions, pressure, or threats of force.

The three nations also reiterated their commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), recognizing it as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. China and Russia welcomed Iran’s assurance of the peaceful nature of its nuclear program and its commitment to full compliance with NPT obligations and comprehensive safeguards agreements. Both countries reaffirmed their support for Iran’s continued cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and emphasized Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The meeting, held at Beijing’s Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, was attended by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu, and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Gharib Reza Abadi. Ryabkov reiterated the importance of respecting Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and urged the avoidance of any actions that could escalate tensions in the Middle East. He stressed the need to create conditions conducive to a diplomatic resolution of the nuclear issue.

Beyond the nuclear discussions, the meeting also explored opportunities for enhanced collaboration within international organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS, underscoring the need to strengthen multilateral cooperation.

U.S. Sanctions and Iran’s Stance Against Pressure Tactics

The meeting in Beijing occurred against the backdrop of ongoing U.S. sanctions on Iran. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reaffirmed that while Iran does not seek war, it will respond decisively if provoked by the United States or its allies. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also asserted that Iran will not succumb to threats, clarifying that willingness to negotiate does not equate to submission.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reiterated on Thursday that Tehran will not engage in negotiations under maximum pressure, arguing that such talks would fail to meet Iran’s demands. Araghchi stated that Iran’s strategy in response to Washington’s pressure campaign is one of “maximum resistance.” He further emphasized that Iran would only enter direct negotiations with the U.S. if its national interests were guaranteed and discussions were conducted without threats or coercion.

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei condemned U.S. efforts to disrupt Iran’s economic and trade activities, labeling them as clear violations of international law and free trade principles. Earlier, the U.S. government had announced new financial sanctions targeting an alleged international network accused of transferring Iranian oil to China to fund Tehran’s military activities.

Background: The Iran Nuclear Deal and Its Fallout

In 2015, Iran reached a nuclear agreement with the U.S., the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China, which required Tehran to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in May 2018, during the first term of President Donald Trump, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the agreement and reinstated sanctions on Iran. In response, Iran gradually reduced its commitments under the deal, including lifting restrictions on nuclear research and uranium enrichment.

As tensions persist, Iran, Russia, and China continue to push for a diplomatic approach, urging an end to economic sanctions and reaffirming their commitment to peaceful negotiations.

Indonesia and China relations: Prabowo visits Beijing for first state visit, as Singapore connects its economy to China

Indonesia and China relations: Prabowo visits Beijing for first state visit, as Singapore connects its economy to China

    Friday, November 08, 2024   No comments

At the invitation of President Xi Jinping, Prabowo will pay a state visit to China from Friday to Sunday. President Xi will hold a welcoming ceremony for him, and the two heads of state will hold talks. Premier Li Qiang and Zhao Leji, chairman of the National People's Congress Standing Committee, will meet with him respectively, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry. 

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto arrived at Beijing Capital International Airport, China, at 6:25 p.m. local time on Friday for his inaugural state visit, at the invitation of his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping.

Accompanied by his son, Didit Hediprasetyo, Prabowo disembarked from the Boeing 737-700 BBJ presidential aircraft and was greeted with a guard of honor performed by the People’s Liberation Army. A young girl then presented the Indonesian head of state with flowers.

Chinese Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Han Jun, received Prabowo and his officials, including Minister of Foreign Affairs Retno Marsudi and Cabinet Secretary Teddy Indra Wijaya, at the airport.

Spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mao Ning, said earlier that Prabowo's decision to choose China as the first stop on his inaugural overseas tour reflects the importance of Indonesia-China bilateral ties.

Another neighbor to China, and significant Muslim influence, Singapore, is also strengthening relations with China. The Singapore Business Federation (SBF) organized the 7th Singapore-China Trade and Investment Forum (SCTIF) in Shanghai on Wednesday, on the sidelines of the 7th China International Import Expo (CIIE), with 15 memorandums of understanding valued at more than S$60 million ($45.26 million) signed, setting the stage for new growth opportunities and strengthening bilateral partnerships. 

BRICS Calling for a ceasefire in Gaza: We condemn Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Syria

BRICS Calling for a ceasefire in Gaza: We condemn Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Syria

    Wednesday, October 23, 2024   No comments

The BRICS group of countries stressed the need for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, expressing its condemnation of the Israeli occupation's targeting of humanitarian operations and aid distribution centers in the Strip.

In a statement issued by the summit held in Russia on Wednesday, BRICS expressed its support for granting occupied Palestine full membership in the United Nations.

In addition, the group's countries confirmed that they consider the occupation's bombing of pagers in Lebanon a violation of international laws, expressing their condemnation of Israel's targeting of Iranian diplomatic buildings in Damascus.

In the statement, BRICS urged all parties to resume the Iranian nuclear agreement, calling for strengthening the "non-proliferation regime and establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East."

Regarding the war in Ukraine, BRICS countries welcomed "good offices proposals on the Ukrainian settlement."

They also called for accelerating "the development and adoption of a comprehensive agreement to combat international terrorism within the framework of the United Nations," expressing "deep concern about the negative impact of unilateral sanctions on the global economy and other areas," and stressing the group's "leading role in the process of improving the global financial system."

It is noteworthy that the activities of the second day of the BRICS Summit 2024 began on Wednesday in the Russian city of Kazan, where a number of leaders, leaders and guests arrived in the city to participate in the summit, which was held in an expanded manner.

During a brief meeting held by Russian President Vladimir Putin with the group’s leaders, he confirmed “the existence of radical changes in a multipolar world,” stressing that his country “seeks to strengthen BRICS’ position in the world and focus on solving global and local problems,” adding that the group’s countries “show responsibility in their dealings with global situations through actions, not words.”

What to expect from BRICS under Russia's leadership

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced today, Wednesday, during a narrow meeting with the leaders of the BRICS group, that there are radical changes in a multipolar world.

During the meeting, Putin stressed that the BRICS countries have enormous economic, scientific, demographic and political potential.

He pointed out that Russia seeks to strengthen the position of BRICS in the world and focus on solving global and local problems, adding that the group's countries "show responsibility in their dealings with global situations through actions, not words."

The Russian president also stressed that "the BRICS countries' share in the global economy by the end of this year will represent 36.7%, which is more than the share of the G7 countries," adding that "the BRICS countries have become the most powerful economic group in the world."

He stressed that using the dollar as a weapon undermines confidence in it, noting that Russia is not abandoning it but is forced to look for alternatives.

Regarding the expansion of BRICS, Putin said: “Of course, it would be wrong to ignore the unprecedented interest of the countries of the Global South and East in strengthening contacts with the group’s countries, as more than 30 countries have already expressed this desire in one form or another,” but at the same time, “it is necessary to maintain balance and prevent a decline in BRICS’ effectiveness.”

During the meeting, the Russian President proposed to form a list of BRICS partner countries and to fix this in the final declaration of the Kazan Summit.

An alternative to SWIFT and de-dollarization.. BRICS expansion pushes towards a new global financial system

With the BRICS summit being held in the Russian city of Kazan with the participation of 36 countries, the group's aims have begun to materialize in practice, as its serious and decisive efforts to expand its membership circle have become apparent, and thus push towards creating a new financial system, far from the SWIFT system, which serves specific economic entities and entrenches economic crises that harm every entity trying to find a place outside the framework of Western hegemony.

The use of the US dollar and the SWIFT system as a weapon by the United States of America, especially after targeting Russia and separating it from the SWIFT system in 2022, has raised deep concerns about the security of the global financial system centered around America, as this exclusion has serious economic consequences, not only for the targeted countries, but for global trade in general.

This situation has highlighted the urgent need for alternatives to SWIFT, and for a financial system less dependent on the dollar to mitigate such risks. In this context, the group has long been discussing the idea of ​​a BRICS currency, which could be a basket of currencies backed by natural resources such as gold, oil and gas. What helps BRICS is that its countries collectively have larger gold reserves than the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank combined, according to the Independent Online website, and it is now seeking to expand its membership.

  

Taliban Delegation Arrives in Moscow for Consultations on Afghan Issues

Taliban Delegation Arrives in Moscow for Consultations on Afghan Issues

    Friday, October 04, 2024   No comments

A Taliban delegation, led by the acting Afghan Foreign Minister, has arrived in Moscow for the “Moscow format” consultations on Afghanistan. The format, established in 2017, brings together 10 nations interested in an Afghan settlement, including Russia, India, Iran, and China.

The Russian Foreign Ministry confirmed that the decision to remove the Taliban from the list of terrorist organizations "was made at the highest level," the Russian news agency TASS reported on Friday. The Russian president's special representative to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, explained that this decision must be followed by various legal procedures.

Russian President Vladimir Putin noted last July that Russia considers the Taliban an ally in the fight against terrorism. Russia has called on Western countries to lift sanctions imposed on Afghanistan.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed the need for the West to take responsibility for the reconstruction of post-conflict Afghanistan, stressing the need to return confiscated assets to Kabul.

Relations between Russia and the Taliban have strengthened since they seized power in August 2021, following the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. Moscow has gradually moved towards removing the movement's designation as a "terrorist organization," despite Western sanctions imposed on the Taliban for more than 20 years.

"We urge Western countries to recognize their responsibility for the reconstruction of post-conflict Afghanistan, lift sanctions imposed on it, and return confiscated assets to Kabul," Lavrov said.

Lavrov stressed that Russia will not accept any military presence of other countries in Afghanistan or the establishment of new military bases in neighboring countries. He also stressed the importance of the current Afghan government in combating drug production and fighting ISIS.

Lavrov called for increasing humanitarian aid to the Afghan people, and stressed that Russia will continue to provide food support and basic supplies to Afghanistan.

At the end of his remarks, Lavrov called on the United States to return confiscated Afghan assets, holding the West responsible for the country's post-conflict reconstruction.

Chinese Foreign Minister: The Palestinian issue is the greatest wound to the conscience of humanity and historical injustice should not be ignored

Chinese Foreign Minister: The Palestinian issue is the greatest wound to the conscience of humanity and historical injustice should not be ignored

    Saturday, September 28, 2024   No comments

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed on Saturday that the Palestinian issue is the greatest wound to the conscience of humanity at this moment. In his speech at the general debate of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly, the Chinese official spoke about the ongoing war in Gaza and the recent developments in Lebanon, stressing that force cannot replace justice and that the long-held aspiration of Palestine to establish an independent state should not be ignored.

 “The historical injustice suffered by the Palestinian people should no longer be ignored, and there should be no delay in reaching a comprehensive ceasefire,” he continued, stressing that the fundamental solution lies in the two-state solution. 

He stressed that China has always been a strong supporter of the Palestinian people’s just cause to restore their legitimate national rights and a strong supporter of Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations. 

Wang Yi stated that Beijing has recently helped achieve breakthroughs in Palestinian internal reconciliation and will continue to work in coordination with like-minded countries to achieve a comprehensive and just settlement of the Palestinian issue and lasting peace and stability in the Middle East.

Palestinian factions sign 'Beijing Declaration'; agree to form an "interim national reconciliation government"

Palestinian factions sign 'Beijing Declaration'; agree to form an "interim national reconciliation government"

    Tuesday, July 23, 2024   No comments

The Palestinian factions announced at the conclusion of meetings held in China their agreement to reach a "comprehensive national unity" that includes all forces within the framework of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and to form an interim national consensus government.

The factions participating in the meeting: Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Palestinian People's Party, the Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, and the Palestinian National Initiative Movement.

The meeting was also attended by the Popular Front - General Command, the Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA), the Palestine Liberation Front, the Arab Liberation Front, the Arab Palestinian Front, and the Vanguard of the Popular Liberation War (Sa'iqa Forces).

The factions said in a statement: "The national factions agreed during their meetings in China to reach a comprehensive Palestinian national unity that includes all Palestinian forces and factions within the framework of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and to commit to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, in accordance with United Nations resolutions, and to guarantee the right of return in accordance with Resolution 194."

She added: "Based on the National Accord Agreement signed in Cairo on May 4, 2011, and the Algiers Declaration signed on October 12, 2022, the factions decided to continue following up on the implementation of the agreements to end the division with the help of Egypt, Algeria, China and Russia."

The factions specified in the statement four items related to following up on the implementation of the agreements to end the division, the first of which is the commitment to "the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions, especially resolutions 181 and 2334, and ensuring the right of return in accordance with resolution 194."

As for the second, according to the statement, it stipulates "the right of the Palestinian people to resist and end the occupation in accordance with international laws and the United Nations Charter and the right of peoples to self-determination and their struggle to achieve this in all available forms."

The third is based on "forming a temporary national accord government with the agreement of the Palestinian factions and by a decision of the president based on the Palestinian Basic Law in force, and for the formed government to exercise its powers and authorities over all Palestinian territories in a manner that confirms the unity of the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip."

The statement said that the expected government "will begin by unifying all institutions in the territories of the Palestinian state and begin rebuilding the sector, and preparing for holding general elections under the supervision of the Palestinian Central Elections Commission as soon as possible in accordance with the approved elections law."

In the fourth item, the factions said in the statement: "In order to deepen the political partnership in bearing national responsibility and in order to develop the institutions of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the agreement was confirmed to activate and regulate the temporary unified leadership framework for partnership in political decision-making, in accordance with what was agreed upon in the Palestinian National Accord Document signed on May 4, 2011, until the practical steps to form the new National Council are implemented in accordance with the approved elections law."

In this context, the factions agreed in Beijing to "resist and thwart attempts to displace Palestinians from their land, and to emphasize the illegitimacy of settlements and settlement expansion in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations and the opinion of the International Court of Justice."

The factions also agreed to "work to lift the brutal siege on Gaza and the West Bank, and the importance of delivering humanitarian and medical aid without restrictions or conditions," in addition to "supporting the families of martyrs and the wounded and all those who lost their homes and property."

The statement indicated that the factions agreed on "a collective mechanism to implement the provisions of the declaration in all its aspects," without announcing this mechanism.

The factions also considered "the meeting of the secretaries-general a starting point for the work of the joint national teams and decided to set a timetable for implementing this declaration; without mentioning it," according to the statement.

For his part, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi confirmed on Tuesday that 14 Palestinian factions have reached an agreement to form an "interim national reconciliation government" to manage the Gaza Strip after the war.

Wang explained, during the signing of the "Beijing Declaration" in the Chinese capital, that the most important point in the agreement is the formation of this government. He also pointed out that "reconciliation is an internal matter for the Palestinian factions, but at the same time it cannot be achieved without the support of the international community."

The Chinese minister expressed China's keenness to play a constructive role in "maintaining peace and stability in the Middle East."

The secretaries-general of the factions held two meetings during the past few years, the first in the Lebanese capital Beirut on September 3, 2020, and the second in the Egyptian city of El Alamein on July 30, 2023.

The Chinese government spokesperson, according to Chinese media, supported and guided the work to the meeting. Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated in his speech, the most important consensus of this dialogue is achieving grand reconciliation and unity among all 14 factions. The core outcome is the clear recognition that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. 

The most notable highlight is the consensus reached on post-war governance in Gaza and the formation of a temporary national reconciliation government. The strongest call is for the genuine establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on relevant UN resolutions, the spokesperson said.

Wang also proposed a "three-step" initiative in response to the current Gaza conflict. 

The first step is to achieve a comprehensive, lasting, and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza as soon as possible, ensuring smooth access to humanitarian aid and relief. 

The second step is to jointly promote post-war governance in Gaza, adhering to the principle of "Palestinians governing Palestinians." 

The third step is to push for Palestine to become a full member of the United Nations and begin implementing the "two-state solution." These three steps are interlinked and indispensable.

Was Biden angry with Netanyahu for attacking Iran’s diplomatic building, a treaty violation, or for killing aid workers, a war crime, or both?

Was Biden angry with Netanyahu for attacking Iran’s diplomatic building, a treaty violation, or for killing aid workers, a war crime, or both?

    Monday, April 08, 2024   No comments

With news reports about US administration reaching out to Iran with an offer to stop its promise of retaliatory strikes against Israel for the latter's attack on Iran's diplomatic facility in Syria, and with Iran's foreign minister making an unscheduled trip to Oman yesterday, it appears that Biden used the killing of aid workers to mask his anger with Israel crossing a red line and carrying out what is essentially a direct attack on Iran.

There is no doubt that Iran can retaliate directly against Israel. It did so against the US when Trump assassinated Soleimani in January 2020. An Iranian retaliatory attack against Israel could set new course for the entire region, however. 

If Iran attacks Israel directly, the right-wing government in Israel will be forced to retaliate or it will collapse. If it were to retaliate to the retaliation, the armed confrontation enters a new phase, similar to the active front with Hezbollah. That will be catastrophic for Israel for many reasons.

Israel cannot invade Iran and if the US does not get involved directly, all Israel can do is to trade rockets and bombs from distance. That formular favors Iran for many reasons, too.  

First, Iran is a much larger country, and its weapons systems are dispersed all over the country. It will not be possible for Israel to take out all weapons systems. If that was possible, US could have done that in Yemen where a much smaller and less prepared group, the Houthis, have overcome a military Western coalition that has been bombing them for months.

Second, Iran has a formidable array of weapons, rockets and drones, that can be launched for months or even years. In addition to these long-distance weapons, Iran can rely on its allies in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq to provide support.

Iran will respond given that the highest authority in the country already stated that Iran will receive “a slap”. The question is whether US diplomacy will manage to limit Iran’s response to limits of Israel’s attack. That is, an attack on Israeli diplomatic missions and perhaps an attack on military installations in occupied territories to end the cycle. Iran has the option to attack Israel directly because it considers its diplomatic facilities sovereign territories of Iran. However, attacking Israel diplomatic facilities places Iran outside International norms, too, which it has been using to get the world community to condemn it. 

All these factors give credence to the reporting about the US offer to Iran, possibly through Oman. Because all these indicator show that Israel committed a grave mistake when it attacked a diplomatic facility. It may not just US acting to prevent the widening of a conflict, it is likely that Israel wants to limit the damage too. 

The following media reports provide more contect to what might be behind the scene negotiations.

Iranian diplomatic sources say the US is trying to convince Iran not to retaliate against Israel for its bombing of the Iranian embassy in Syria earlier this month, Al-Jarida newspaper reported on 8 April.

The Israeli strike targeted a building attached to the Iranian embassy in Damascus. It led to the killing of the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, his deputy, and five other IRGC officers.

A source in the Iranian foreign ministry told Al-Jarida that Washington offered Tehran direct negotiations with Tel Aviv to de-escalate the conflict.  

According to the source, Washington will guarantee to persuade Tel Aviv to stop its military operations in Syria and Lebanon on the condition that Iran commit not to retaliate against Israel for the Damascus attack.

At the same time, a diplomatic source in Beirut told Al-Jarida that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected an American proposal to pledge to stop attacks in Syria.

The source added that Iranian leader Ali Khamenei is reviewing the US offer but is not expected to accept it if it does not include guarantees for a comprehensive ceasefire in Gaza and to stop all Israeli and US attacks on Iranian targets or those belonging to Iran's allies in the Axis of Resistance.

The source revealed that the Iranians had also previously received a verbal Israeli proposal via a Gulf state. In the proposal, Tel Aviv claimed it was ready to stop operations against Iranian targets in Syria and Lebanon in exchange for Tehran abandoning retaliation for the killing of Zahedi, whose killing was considered the most significant blow to Iran since the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

According to the source, the Iranian Foreign Ministry responded to the Israeli message by saying that the proposal must also include a ceasefire in Gaza.

However, some IRGC leaders were unhappy with the foreign ministry's response, viewing the Israeli proposal as a trap. The IRGC leaders argued that any negotiations with Israel must take place only after Iran has retaliated.

The source stated that IRGC commanders believe that Israel's targeting of the Iranian consulate is an opportunity that should not be missed to strike a strong blow at Israel, especially since the consular building in Damascus is considered sovereign Iranian territory and was targeted in a clear violation of international law.

The source said that the IRGC leadership believes Washington will not enter a war with Iran even if it retaliates against Israel. They also consider that an adequately harsh strike against Israel will compel it to accept a ceasefire in Gaza and abandon any plans to invade Lebanon or escalate its bombing in Syria.

Western government continue to lose credibility

Despite the fact that the attack on Iran’s diplomatic mission in Syria violated global treaties including the Vienna Conventions regulating diplomatic and consular relations and the immunities of diplomats and headquarters (1961, 1963, 1969) and the Rome Statute, US government and its Western allies did not explicitly condemn the attack. Instead, they called on Iran to exert “self-restraint.” 

On Thursday, the German Foreign Ministry called, through a statement, on all parties in the Middle East to calm down, exercise restraint, and act responsibly, following a call by Minister Annalena Baerbock who discussed the matter with Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian.

On Thursday, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron warned of “expanding conflicts”. During a phone call with his Iranian counterpart, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, according to a statement by the Iranian Foreign Ministry that was reported by local media outlets, including the private “Tasnim” agency.

According to the agency, the Iranian Foreign Ministry quoted Cameron as saying that he asked Iran to exercise restraint, and said that “lack of restraint on the part of the parties could lead to further expansion of conflicts in the region.”

Regional powers on the other hand voiced condemnation, directly accusing Israel of violating international norms.

Turkey denounced, in a Foreign Ministry statement, the bombing and considered it a violation of international law, warning that the attack may lead to an exacerbation of the conflict in the region.

Saudi Arabia also condemned the targeting in a Foreign Ministry statement, expressing its “categorical rejection of targeting diplomatic facilities for any justification, and under any pretext.”

In a brief Foreign Ministry statement, the UAE condemned “the targeting of the Iranian diplomatic mission in the Syrian capital, Damascus,” without any additional comment.

Qatar also condemned, in a Foreign Ministry statement, the attack, and considered it “a blatant violation of international agreements and conventions,” stressing “its complete rejection of targeting diplomatic and consular missions and the necessity of providing protection for their employees in accordance with the rules of international law.”

Egypt said, in a statement to the Foreign Ministry, “We categorically reject the attack on diplomatic facilities under any justification, and we stand in solidarity with Syria in respecting its sovereignty and the integrity of its lands and people.”

Kuwait also considered, in a Foreign Ministry statement, the attack a “flagrant assault,” renewing its call on “the international community and the Security Council to assume its responsibilities towards taking the necessary measures and exerting the necessary efforts to preserve the safety and stability of the countries of the region and reduce tension and escalation.”

In a statement condemning the attack, the Omani Foreign Ministry stressed “the need to stop the escalation in the region and reject aggression and other actions that threaten security and stability,” expressing condolences to the families of the victims and wishing a speedy recovery to the injured.

Iraq also confirmed in a Foreign Ministry statement that the attack “represents a clear and flagrant violation of international law and Syrian sovereignty,” warning that “the expansion of the cycle of violence in the region will lead to more chaos and instability.”

China and Russia, on the other hand, took advantage of Western reluctance to denounce the flouting of international law

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said that his country strongly condemns the Israeli attack and stresses that the security of diplomatic institutions cannot be violated. He stressed in a press conference in Beijing that “China opposes any actions that lead to escalation of tensions in the Middle East region.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry on Monday strongly condemned the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate building in the Syrian capital Damascus earlier in the day, denouncing the action as "unacceptable."

"We consider any attacks on diplomatic and consular facilities, the inviolability of which is guaranteed by the relevant Vienna Conventions, to be categorically unacceptable," the ministry said in a statement.

Noting that the attack was carried out in a densely populated metropolitan area with a high risk of mass civilian casualties, the ministry said such "aggressive" actions by Israel are "absolutely unacceptable and must be stopped."

 

UN Security Council rejects US draft resolution on War in Gaza

UN Security Council rejects US draft resolution on War in Gaza

    Friday, March 22, 2024   No comments

 Algeria, the country that proposed an earlier UNSC resolution to stop the war on Gaza, rejected the US-drafted resolution. It was joined by both China and Russia, whose vetoes sunk the US resolution.

Amar Bendjama, Algeria’s ambassador to the UN, said the text was inadequate and failed to address the immense suffering endured by the Palestinians. “Those who believe that the Israeli occupying power will choose to uphold its international legal obligations are mistaken,” he told the council. “They must abandon this fiction.”

Last February, it objected to the use of the term “immediate” in the draft resolution submitted by Algeria.

Since blocking the Algerian draft resolution, which calls for an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire" in Gaza at the end of last February, US officials have been negotiating an alternative text that focuses on supporting diplomatic efforts on the ground for a six-week truce in exchange for the release of the hostages.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, said that children, women and men are “living an endless nightmare,” stressing that there is no effective way to distribute aid without a ceasefire.

US rejection of three previous UNSC resolutions made some members skeptical and worried that US intentions have been thus far about shielding Israel and not about stopping the bloodshed. They want to see a clean resolution that orders an immediate cease fire and the unhindered delivery of food, water, medicine, and shelter to end the starvation of civilians in Gaza. Other issues can be addressed in separate resolutions.

China insists on an immediate and unconditional ceasefire not linked to the release of the captives

China's Permanent Representative to the Security Council, Zhang Jun, said: "We voted against the American draft resolution because it does not request an immediate ceasefire, even though the Secretary-General used Article 99 of the Charter for that purpose," adding that "the Council wasted a long time and did not request a ceasefire." Fire after."

The Chinese delegate believed that “the American draft resolution is ambiguous and does not meet the aspirations of the international community,” and that it is “unbalanced because it does not explicitly oppose the attack on Rafah,” and “it does not warn of the dire consequences that could result from such an attack.”

He continued: "The Council now has before it a clear draft resolution requesting an immediate ceasefire, and China supports it," expressing his hope "that it will gain the support of member states," because it "requests an end to the conflict and the immediate release of the hostages."

The Chinese delegate also indicated that “China rejects the accusations of America and Britain” related to its positions, considering that “if the United States is serious about a ceasefire, it should support this draft resolution.”

Zhang Jun, China's permanent representative to the UN, offered further explanation about China's voting position and relevant considerations after the vote.

Zhang said that more than 160 days have passed since the outbreak of the Gaza conflict. In the face of this human tragedy in which more than 32,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives and has left millions suffering from famine, the most urgent action to be taken by the Council is to promote an immediate, unconditional, and sustained ceasefire, which is the universal call of the international community. But the Council has dragged its feet and wasted too much time in this regard, Zhang said.

The envoy added that the US has always evaded and dodged the most essential issue, which is a ceasefire. The final text remains ambiguous and does not call for an immediate ceasefire, nor does it even provide an answer to the question of realizing a ceasefire in the short term. This is a clear deviation from the consensus of the Council members and falls far short of the expectations of the international community. 

"An immediate ceasefire is a fundamental prerequisite for saving lives, expanding humanitarian access, and preventing further conflict. The US draft, on the contrary, sets up preconditions for a ceasefire, which is no different from giving a green light to continued killings, and thus unacceptable," Zhang noted.

Moscow said that the American draft resolution does not call for a ceasefire in Gaza.. Talk about that is a hoax

The Russian Deputy Representative to the United Nations, Dmitry Polyansky, confirmed that the American draft resolution on the situation in the Gaza Strip does not include any call for a ceasefire.

Polyansky stated that the draft resolution "does not include any call for a ceasefire, as previous drafts did not include. Rather, only a philosophical statement appeared there about its importance, while linking it to the release of prisoners."

 The Russian diplomat believed that talk about the United States including a ceasefire in Gaza in the draft resolution for the first time is “just an American trick.”

In addition, “there is practically a green light for an Israeli military operation in Rafah, while attention should be focused mainly on praising the United States’ own efforts on the ground,” according to Polyansky.

He added, "This is not what humanitarian agencies need," stressing that "no philosophy will be useful in the absence of a direct demand for a ceasefire."

Polyansky pointed out, "We should not give in to Washington's attempts to present the hope as if it were a real thing, as the United States is still not interested in a real ceasefire, and is doing everything in its power not to prevent its closest ally in the Middle East from abusing the Palestinians."

History of the American veto to protect Israel

The United States’ position on UN Security Council resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is consistent with its historical use of the veto to prevent any resolutions criticizing Israel, or calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The United States, Israel's main backer, had previously used its veto power in the Security Council to prevent the international body from calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Palestinian territories.

Since 1945, one of the five permanent members of the Council - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - has used its veto to stop 36 draft Security Council resolutions related to Israel and Palestine before. Of these decisions, the United States objected to 34 decisions, while Russia and China objected to two of them.

Security Council resolutions after October 7

The US veto blocked the resolution issued on October 18, 2023, which had demanded a “humanitarian truce” and Israel’s cancellation of its evacuation order in northern Gaza.

The US representative to the United Nations said, “Resolutions are important... but the actions we take must be based on facts on the ground and support direct diplomacy that can save lives,” according to what Reuters reported.

On February 20, the United States used its veto power again to stop another draft resolution in the Security Council, blocking a demand for an immediate ceasefire on humanitarian grounds.

13 members of the Council voted in favor of the text drafted by Algeria, while Britain abstained from voting.

This is the third American veto against a draft resolution since the start of the fighting in Gaza.

The draft resolution drafted by Algeria and objected to by the United States did not link the ceasefire to the release of the hostages, but rather demanded this separately.

Washington has opposed the use of the word ceasefire in any UN action on the war between Israel and Hamas, but the American text uses language that President Joe Biden said he used last week in a phone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This is the second time since October 7 that Washington has proposed issuing a Security Council resolution on Gaza. Russia and China had used their veto power to stop its first attempt.

In December, more than three-quarters of the 193-member UN General Assembly voted to demand an immediate ceasefire on humanitarian grounds. General Assembly resolutions are not binding, but they reflect a global consensus on critical matters—More than 150 countries thinking that the war in Gaza should be stopped immediately to address the starvation and killing of civilians leave the US position quite exposed. Only 10 countries voted against this UNGA resolution. The global consensus, if it continues to be opposed by the US alone, will eventually degrade US standing in the world.

Sensing US fractured foreign policy, China formulates its foreign policy with Taiwan and recognition of independent Palestine top priorities

Sensing US fractured foreign policy, China formulates its foreign policy with Taiwan and recognition of independent Palestine top priorities

    Saturday, March 09, 2024   No comments

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US foreign policy was built on a compelling narrative of human rights and democracy and on a powerful military. Because powerful militaries need justifying rhetoric, the US prioritized is human rights claims. The nexus between human rights norms and Western intervention has collapsed with the ongoing starvation of civilians in Gaza and the near total destruction of homes and infrastructure in the Strip. The difference of Western postures to the war and Ukraine and the War in Gaza made the disconnect even more obvious. China sees these developments as an opportunity to create a foreign policy that is more consistent and that benefit from the self-inflicted injuries of Western powers. The analysis of current events provides more background information.

In Beijing yesterday, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a press conference on the sidelines of the “Meeting of the Second Session of the 14th National People’s Congress,” in which he discussed the “shape” that the foreign policy of the “People’s Republic of China” will take during the coming year. While the Chinese official repeated some of the well-known broad lines of his country’s foreign policy, it seemed remarkable that he escalated “in tone” with regard to some files, especially those related to “Taiwan independence” and American practices towards China. On the other hand, in response to a question about Chinese-Russian relations, Wang Yi stressed that Moscow and Beijing had made the choice to “preserve bilateral relations and develop them strategically, on the basis of the fundamental interests of the two peoples,” considering that the two countries had established a “new model” of relations between large countries. It is represented by a commitment to permanent good neighborliness and deepening comprehensive strategic cooperation on the basis of non-alliance, non-confrontation and non-targeting of a third party,” which “is different from what existed during the Cold War.” Speaking about the latter, the Chinese official considered that “this war should not be repeated,” given that the people have now “rejected the idea of hegemony” and will not accept division. When asked about the Israeli crimes committed in the Gaza Strip, Yi stressed that the “inability” to stop “the humanitarian catastrophe resulting from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the twenty-first century, is tragic for humanity, and a disgrace to civilization,” noting that “what “There is no pretext or excuse that justifies the continuation of the conflict and the killing of civilians,” he said. Wang Yi also stressed that “it is not permissible to continue to ignore the long-term occupation of the Palestinian territories, and the aspirations of the Palestinian people to establish an independent state, as well as the continuation of the historical injustice that this people has suffered over the generations, without correcting it.” According to the Chinese official, “Getting out of the spiral of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict once and for all, removing the fertile ground for extremist ideas of all kinds, and truly achieving lasting peace in the Middle East is not possible except by restoring the Palestinian people’s rights,” and implementing the “two-state solution.” In a comprehensive manner. He also renewed the call for granting Palestine “full membership in the Security Council,” along with “holding a more effective and credible international peace conference,” to set a timetable for implementing the principle of the “two-state solution.” With regard to Taiwan, Beijing, through its Foreign Minister, reiterated Emphasizing that its “clear” policy is to continuously seek the peaceful reunification of the island, warning, in return, that “the red line is clear” on this issue as well, which is not to allow “the separation of Taiwan from the motherland.” Wang Yi added, addressing the authorities in Taiwan and their allies: “Whoever prepares (for Taiwan independence) from within the island of Taiwan will inevitably be held accountable by history. Whoever tolerates that independence and supports it on the international scene will be consumed by the fire he kindled, and will eat the bitter fruits he sowed.” Wang Yi also called on all Chinese people to “give priority to the supreme national interest” and oppose Taiwan independence “together.”

Prior to the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s statements, some Chinese media outlets, especially the state-owned Global Times newspaper, hinted that Prime Minister Li Qiang had escalated, in the annual “government work report” he submitted to the “Chinese People’s Congress,” regarding... Taiwan, as he did not mention the term “peaceful reunification,” stressing instead that China “will be resolute in pushing for the reunification of China.” While some Western observers said that this step was “deliberate” by Beijing, considering that it may be “an indication of a more assertive future stance towards Taiwan,” the deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University did not deny this, in an interview with the newspaper. The Chinese, the aforementioned point of view, considered that deleting the phrase “indicates that confronting secession attempts and containing Taiwan independence provocations will be a more urgent and practical task for the mainland in the coming years.”

Although the Chinese Foreign Minister stressed, once again, the necessity of not dragging Beijing and Washington into any kind of confrontation or conflict, in order to avoid “unpleasant consequences,” he quickly “escalated” his criticism of American practices, asking: “If The United States was saying one thing and doing another, so where is its credibility as a major country? If the United States feels tense and anxious just hearing the name (China), where is its self-confidence as a major country? (...)». He added that Washington faces problems “with itself, not with China,” considering that the American “addiction” to Beijing’s “suppression” will ultimately harm the United States itself. The Chinese minister’s criticism also extended to Europe, as he saw that the latter “classified China in three categories at the same time, that is, partner, competitor, and systemic adversary,” considering that such a classification is unrealistic and unenforceable.

Rim Hani