In the News: France and Germany Condemn U.S. Foreign Policy as “New Colonialism” and “Robber’s Den”

In the News: France and Germany Condemn U.S. Foreign Policy as “New Colonialism” and “Robber’s Den”

    Thursday, January 08, 2026   No comments

January 9, 2026 — Paris and Berlin

In a rare and forceful rebuke of U.S. foreign policy, the presidents of France and Germany have issued sharp criticisms of Washington’s recent actions under President Donald Trump, warning that America’s shift away from multilateralism and international norms threatens to unravel the postwar global order.

Speaking before France’s diplomatic corps at the Élysée Palace on Thursday, President Emmanuel Macron lamented what he described as a “gradual turning away” by the United States from its traditional allies and the very international rules it once championed. Macron characterized the current trajectory of U.S. diplomacy as exhibiting “a new colonial aggressiveness,” asserting that the world is increasingly dominated by great powers tempted to carve it up among themselves.

“The U.S. is an established power, but one that is gradually turning away from some of its allies and breaking free from the very international rules that it was until recently promoting,” Macron said. He added that multilateral institutions are “functioning less and less effectively,” and urged reform of the United Nations—calling on the G7 and major emerging powers to help reshape a faltering international system.

Macron’s remarks come amid growing European unease over a series of unilateral U.S. moves, including last weekend’s dramatic raid in Caracas that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and President Trump’s long-stated ambition to acquire Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark. Though Macron did not explicitly name these incidents, diplomats and analysts widely interpreted his comments as a direct response.

Across the Rhine, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, himself a former foreign minister, delivered an equally stark warning Wednesday evening during a public forum. Steinmeier said the international order is suffering a “second historic rupture”—the first being Russia’s annexation of Crimea and full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The second, he argued, stems from the erosion of democratic values by none other than America, “our most important partner,” which helped construct the very system now under threat.

“The world must not be allowed to descend into a robber’s den,” Steinmeier declared, “where the most unscrupulous take whatever they want, and entire regions or nations are treated as the private property of a few great powers.”

Both leaders emphasized the urgency of defending a rules-based international order while navigating the delicate balance of maintaining the transatlantic alliance. Europe, caught between upholding international law and preserving its strategic and economic ties with the U.S.—especially in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine—has struggled to formulate a unified response to Washington’s increasingly assertive and unilateral foreign policy.

Macron underscored France’s push for “greater strategic autonomy” and reduced dependence on both the U.S. and China—a vision increasingly shared across European capitals. “We reject new colonialism and new imperialism,” he said, “but also vassalage and defeatism.”

The simultaneous but apparently uncoordinated condemnations from Europe’s two most influential powers mark a significant escalation in transatlantic tensions. As the Biden-era emphasis on alliances and multilateralism appears to give way to a more transactional and expansionist approach under Trump’s regime, European leaders are signaling they may no longer accept U.S. leadership uncritically—and may act independently to safeguard global norms.

Erdogan Vows to Eradicate Terrorism, Condemns Foreign Interference in Venezuela

Erdogan Vows to Eradicate Terrorism, Condemns Foreign Interference in Venezuela

    Monday, January 05, 2026   No comments

Ankara, January 6, 2026 — Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reaffirmed his government’s unwavering commitment to eliminating terrorism and upholding international law during a speech following a cabinet meeting in Ankara on Tuesday. Declaring that Turkey will not allow any actor to undermine its vision of a “Turkey free from terrorism,” Erdoğan framed the fight against terror as both a national imperative and a moral obligation.

“For forty years, terrorism has drained our nation’s energy and resources,” Erdoğan stated. “With our clear vision of a Turkey without terrorism, we will finally put an end to this scourge.”

The president identified several groups—including ISIS, the Gülen movement (FETÖ), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)—as instruments of what he described as “imperialist shackles” designed to weaken Turkey. He accused external forces of using these organizations to destabilize the country and obstruct its sovereignty.

Beyond its domestic security agenda, Erdoğan emphasized Turkey’s role as a global advocate for justice, legality, and international norms. “Turkey stands at the forefront of nations defending justice, legitimacy, and international law across the world,” he said, citing Ankara’s consistent positions in conflict zones from Gaza to Syria. “Wherever injustice or violations of international law occur, we have made our stance unmistakably clear.”

Turning to Latin America, Erdoğan expressed deep concern over recent developments in Venezuela, a country he described as a “close friend” of Turkey. He referred to ongoing political and social unrest in the South American nation as “regrettable events” and warned against foreign interference that could exacerbate the crisis.

During a recent conversation with former U.S. President Donald Trump, Erdoğan said he stressed the importance of avoiding actions that might plunge Venezuela into further instability. “We do not accept any violation of international law,” he asserted. “Our goal is to support what is best not only for Turkey but also for our friendly Venezuelan people.”

The Turkish leader pledged his country’s continued solidarity with the Venezuelan population in their pursuit of “prosperity, stability, and development.” He cautioned that breaches of national sovereignty and violations of international legal norms are “risky steps” that could trigger serious global repercussions.

Erdoğan’s remarks come amid heightened geopolitical tensions and underscore Turkey’s ambition to position itself as a principled actor on the world stage—one that champions anti-imperialism, respects state sovereignty, and combats terrorism in all its forms.

China, other countries Slam U.S. Coup in Venezuela at UN Security Council

China, other countries Slam U.S. Coup in Venezuela at UN Security Council

    Monday, January 05, 2026   No comments

United Nations, New York – January 6, 2026

In a forceful intervention at the United Nations Security Council today, China issued a scathing condemnation of what it described as a U.S.-led military operation that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, followed by Washington’s declaration of intent to “run Venezuela.” The statement, delivered by China’s Permanent Representative to the UN, underscored Beijing’s rejection of unilateral interventions and reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and international law.

China’s ambassador opened the statement with an unequivocal denunciation: “The United States has flagrantly violated Venezuela’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and grossly breached the foundational principles of the UN Charter.” He emphasized that no nation, regardless of its power, has the right to unilaterally impose regime change or dictate the internal affairs of another sovereign state.

“The actions taken by the United States constitute a textbook coup d’état—executed not by domestic actors, but by foreign military force,” he declared.

Central to China’s position was a demand for the immediate and unconditional release of President Maduro and his spouse. “President Maduro is the democratically elected head of a UN member state. His detention by foreign forces is not only illegal under international law but also sets a dangerous precedent for global order,” the ambassador stated.

He warned that holding a sitting head of state captive would “destabilize the entire Western Hemisphere” and potentially trigger a regional crisis.

China urged the Security Council to convene emergency consultations and adopt a resolution condemning the U.S. intervention, calling on all member states to refrain from recognizing any authority imposed by force. “The Council must act—not to enforce the will of the powerful, but to uphold international legality and prevent further bloodshed,” the statement read.

The Chinese representative stressed that Venezuela’s future must be determined solely by its people through peaceful and democratic means, free from external coercion.

One of the most resonant lines from the speech came in response to what China described as Washington’s historical pattern of interventionism in Latin America: “Latin America is not a U.S. colony. It is a zone of peace—a region with its own sovereignty, dignity, and right to self-determination.”

Invoking the legacy of past U.S. military interventions, the ambassador drew stark parallels to Iraq, Libya, and Iran: “We have seen this script before—fabricated justifications, military strikes, regime change, and then chaos. Millions displaced. Infrastructure destroyed. Civilian lives shattered. The world cannot afford another repeat.”

In closing, China issued a broader warning against hegemonism in international relations: “No country can act as the world’s police, nor presume to be the international judge. The era of gunboat diplomacy is over. Multilateralism, not unilateral force, must guide our collective security.”

The statement marks the latest escalation in tensions between Beijing and Washington over Venezuela, a nation that has long been a point of geopolitical contention. While the U.S. has yet to formally address the allegations of a military strike and detention of Maduro, China’s intervention at the Security Council signals its readiness to challenge what it perceives as American overreach on the global stage.

As the international community grapples with this unfolding crisis, China’s message is clear: sovereignty is non-negotiable, and the UN Charter must remain the bedrock of global peace—not a relic to be overridden by power.

Media review: The Illegality of U.S. abduction of the president of Venezuela and the Precedent it will regret setting

Media review: The Illegality of U.S. abduction of the president of Venezuela and the Precedent it will regret setting

    Saturday, January 03, 2026   No comments

In a move that has shocked the international community and drawn swift condemnation from global capitals, U.S. President Donald Trump announced on January 3, 2026, that a covert military operation had successfully “ousted” Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and “extradited” him—along with his wife—from their home in Caracas to face trial in New York on drug and weapons charges. Simultaneously, Trump declared that the United States would “run” Venezuela “properly” and “professionally” until a transition of power could be arranged.

This extraordinary assertion of unilateral authority—framed in triumphalist rhetoric rather than legal or moral reasoning—raises profound questions under both international law and ethical governance. Worse still, it comes just days after Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a leader indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

The juxtaposition is jarring and revealing: while the U.S. president embraces an accused perpetrator of mass civilian atrocities, he orchestrates a military-style raid to depose and abduct the head of state of a sovereign nation—all under the thin veneer of enforcing “justice.”

A Clear Violation of International Law

The United Nations Charter, the bedrock of modern international law, enshrines two core principles: the prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4)) and the right of states to sovereignty and territorial integrity. The U.S. operation in Venezuela—described by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot as an act that “infringes the principle of the non-use of force that underpins international law”—constitutes a textbook violation of both.

Even if one accepts U.S. allegations that Maduro’s government is corrupt or authoritarian (a view held by many human rights groups and Western governments), that does not grant any state the legal authority to invade another, kidnap its sitting president, or impose a transitional administration. There is no UN Security Council resolution authorizing such action. There is no invitation from Venezuela’s legitimate government—only a furious denunciation from Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who was swiftly sworn in as interim leader and demanded Maduro’s immediate return.

Moreover, the notion that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela echoes colonial-era paternalism. As Trump boasted: “We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world going in, invest billions and billions of dollars.” The implicit promise—that Venezuelans will benefit—is undercut by the fact that the U.S. is acting without their consent, installing no democratically legitimate authority, and asserting control over one of the world’s largest oil reserves.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Justice

The ethical bankruptcy of this intervention becomes even starker when viewed alongside U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. Just days before the Venezuela raid, Trump hosted Netanyahu—a man now subject to an ICC arrest warrant for alleged war crimes, including the intentional starvation of civilians and indiscriminate bombing of residential areas in Gaza. The ICC’s charges also cite Netanyahu’s role in a policy that may amount to crimes against humanity.

Yet instead of distancing himself from an indicted ally, Trump rolled out the red carpet. No military raids. No extradition demands. No declarations that Israel must be “run properly” until new leadership emerges.

This double standard exposes a deeply entrenched pattern: international law applies only to adversaries, never to allies—or to the United States itself. When the U.S. acts unilaterally, it calls it “strength.” When others do the same, it’s “aggression.” This selective enforcement erodes the very foundations of a rules-based order and fuels global cynicism about Western claims to moral leadership.

The Dangerous Precedent of Legitimacy as a Weapon

The Trump administration justifies its actions by claiming Maduro’s 2024 re-election was “illegitimate.” But if contested elections become grounds for foreign military intervention and the kidnapping of heads of state, then no leader is safe—not even American presidents.

Consider this: Trump’s own 2016 election was widely scrutinized for foreign interference (as confirmed by U.S. intelligence agencies), voter suppression, and unprecedented foreign meddling. If Canada, Germany, or France adopted Trump’s logic, they could theoretically declare him “illegitimate” and, in the name of democracy, dispatch special forces to Mar-a-Lago to “extradite” him to The Hague.

Of course, no democratic nation would do such a thing—because they respect sovereignty, due process, and legal norms. The absurdity of the hypothetical underscores the recklessness of Trump’s Venezuela gambit. It is not a defense of Maduro to point out that regime change by abduction is lawless. It is a defense of international order.

Supremacism Masquerading as Strategy

At its core, this operation reflects what can only be described as imperial supremacism: the belief that the United States, by virtue of its military and economic power, is exempt from the rules that bind others. Trump’s declaration—“This was one of the most stunning, effective and powerful displays of American military might in American history”—is not a statement of policy but of domination.

Such actions are not only illegal; they are strategically foolish. They alienate allies (the European Union expressed “great concern”), embolden adversaries like Russia and China (both of whom condemned the raid as “armed aggression”), and invite reciprocal logic in other regions. If the U.S. can remove Maduro, why can’t China “liberate” Taiwan? Why can’t Russia “stabilize” the Baltics? The erosion of legal norms is contagious.

A Reckless Abandonment of Principle

The United States once positioned itself as a champion of sovereignty, self-determination, and the rule of law—even if imperfectly. Trump’s Venezuela intervention represents a full-throated rejection of those ideals in favor of raw power politics. By hosting an ICC-indicted leader while simultaneously abducting another on disputed legal grounds, the administration has revealed its moral compass to be calibrated not by justice, but by allegiance.

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.

Saudi-UAE Rift Deepens--A Regional Power Struggle with Global Implications

Saudi-UAE Rift Deepens--A Regional Power Struggle with Global Implications

    Tuesday, December 30, 2025   No comments

A dramatic escalation between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has laid bare the fractures within the once-unified Gulf coalition, revealing a deepening strategic schism over influence in Yemen—and, by extension, the broader Middle East. The latest trigger came on December 30, 2025, when Saudi Arabia launched airstrikes on the Yemeni port of Mukalla, targeting vessels it alleges were carrying weapons from the UAE destined for separatist militias. Simultaneously, Riyadh issued a 24-hour ultimatum demanding the UAE withdraw all military forces from Yemen and cease financial and logistical support to factions operating within the country.

The implications of this confrontation go far beyond Yemen’s fragile borders. They expose the UAE’s increasingly assertive—and often destabilizing—foreign policy, fueled by vast petro-wealth and an ambition to project power disproportionate to its small geographic size and population. More critically, they spotlight the contradictions at the heart of the Emirati state: a gleaming global city built on the backs of a disenfranchised foreign workforce, ruled by a hereditary elite that constitutes just 14% of the population, while the rest—millions of expatriates—are denied basic civil and political rights.

The Yemen Flashpoint

Yemen has long been the proving ground for Gulf rivalries, but the Saudi-UAE split has now reached a breaking point. While both nations ostensibly joined forces in 2015 under the banner of the “Arab Coalition” to restore Yemen’s internationally recognized government, their objectives diverged sharply over time. Saudi Arabia prioritized border security and countering Houthi influence, while the UAE invested heavily in southern separatist groups like the Southern Transitional Council (STC), viewing a fragmented Yemen as strategically advantageous.

Recent developments confirm Saudi Arabia’s worst fears. The STC, with evident Emirati backing, has seized large swaths of land in Hadhramaut and Al-Mahra—governorates adjacent to Saudi territory. Riyadh interprets this not as a local power grab but as a direct threat to its national security. The Saudi Foreign Ministry’s unusually blunt language—calling UAE actions “extremely dangerous” and “incompatible with the foundations of the coalition”—signals a dramatic rupture in bilateral trust.

Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council, under President Rashad al-Alimi, responded by declaring a 90-day state of emergency, revoking a security agreement with the UAE, and imposing a comprehensive blockade on ports and crossings. These measures underscore the extent to which Emirati interference is now seen as an existential threat to Yemeni sovereignty—even by a government that once welcomed UAE support.

The UAE’s Destabilizing Regional Ambitions

The Yemen crisis is not an isolated case. The UAE has consistently leveraged its financial might to back proxy forces across the region—often in defiance of international law and regional stability:

Sudan: The UAE has been accused by the UN and Western intelligence agencies of supplying weapons to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), intensifying the brutal civil war that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions. Abu Dhabi sees the RSF as a counterweight to Islamist and Turkish influence, but its intervention has prolonged and deepened the conflict.

Libya: The UAE openly backed Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) in its failed 2019 assault on Tripoli, providing drones, air support, and mercenaries. Its actions contradicted UN arms embargoes and undermined diplomatic efforts to unify the country.

Somalia: Emirati military presence in Berbera and its port investments have fueled tensions with the Somali federal government, which accuses Abu Dhabi of undermining national sovereignty and cultivating separatist sentiment in Somaliland.

This pattern reveals a consistent Emirati strategy: exploit regional chaos to install pliable local actors, secure strategic ports and military bases, and project influence far beyond its borders—all while avoiding democratic accountability at home.

A Domestic System Built on Exclusion

The UAE’s aggressive external posture is mirrored by a deeply hierarchical internal order. Despite hosting over 9 million foreign workers—many of whom have lived and labored in the country for decades—they are systematically denied pathways to citizenship, political representation, or even basic labor protections. Human rights organizations have long documented systemic abuses: wage theft, passport confiscation, unsafe working conditions, and the absence of collective bargaining rights.

Meanwhile, the Emirati citizen elite—roughly 14% of the population—enjoy immense privileges, including state-funded housing, education, and employment guarantees. This de facto caste system is rarely scrutinized due to the UAE’s carefully cultivated image as a modern, tolerant hub. Yet beneath the skyscrapers and luxury malls lies a rigid social contract: obedience in exchange for wealth, with dissent tolerated only when it comes from the palace, never the pavement.

The Danger of Emirati Supremacism

What makes the UAE’s regional behavior particularly alarming is its ideological underpinning. Unlike Iran or Turkey, whose regional ambitions are framed in religious or civilizational terms, the UAE promotes a form of Gulf-centric supremacism: the belief that small, oil-rich monarchies have the right—and duty—to shape the political destiny of larger, poorer nations through coercion, patronage, and covert warfare.

This worldview is not merely opportunistic; it is imperial in spirit. And it thrives in the absence of accountability. While Saudi Arabia, despite its own human rights record, is increasingly aligning with international diplomatic frameworks the UAE remains defiantly opaque, operating through shadowy networks of private military contractors, offshore finance, and media manipulation.

A Turning Point?

The Saudi ultimatum may mark a historic inflection point. For years, Abu Dhabi skillfully played Riyadh and Washington against each other, presenting itself as a reliable counterterrorism partner while quietly undermining Saudi interests in Yemen and beyond. But with Saudi Arabia now asserting red lines and Yemen’s government turning against its former Emirati patrons, the UAE risks diplomatic and strategic isolation.

More importantly, this crisis could force a long-overdue reckoning with the UAE’s role in the region. If the world continues to treat Abu Dhabi as a benign economic hub while ignoring its role in fueling wars in Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, it will only embolden further adventurism. The cruelty of the Emirati model—both at home and abroad—must no longer be excused by its skyscrapers or sovereign wealth funds.

Saudi Arabia’s warning is clear: destabilization has consequences. Whether the UAE heeds it—or doubles down—will determine not just the fate of Yemen, but the future balance of power in the entire Middle East.

Updated: UAE claims it is ending its presence in Yemen

  UPDATE:

 In an official statement released by the United Arab Emirates' Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the UAE expressed "deep regret" over statements made by Saudi Arabia over the Saudi airstrike on Yemen’s Mukalla port, calling for restraint and warning against further escalation between the two Gulf partners. The UAE also rejected claims that the targeted shipment included weapons and denied that it was supplying arms to local factions.

The statement further reads:

"The Ministry affirms that the shipment in question did not contain any weapons, and the vehicles unloaded were not intended for any Yemeni party but were shipped for use by UAE forces operating in Yemen."

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.

In the News: "Terrorism" as an Instrument for Power to Rewrite Morality

In the News: "Terrorism" as an Instrument for Power to Rewrite Morality

    Tuesday, December 09, 2025   No comments

In the echoing halls of State power, words are never just words. They are weapons—sharpened, aimed, and deployed with chilling precision. In modern times, few labels carry the weight, stigma, and lethal consequence of “terrorist.” Once uttered by an authority, it can shatter lives, dissolve rights, and justify violence that would otherwise be unthinkable. However, history—and current events—reveal a disturbing truth: the designation of “terrorism” is rarely about objective danger. More often, it is a political tool, a fluid and arbitrary label calibrated not by justice, but by convenience.

Consider this: in December 2025, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis declared the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—one of the largest Muslim civil rights organizations in the United States—a “foreign terrorist organization.” Texas Governor Greg Abbott had done the same just weeks earlier. Neither group is listed as such by the U.S. State Department. CAIR, founded in 1994, operates 25 chapters nationwide, advocating for religious freedom, challenging discrimination, and engaging in voter outreach. Its “crime”? Being visibly Muslim in a political climate where visibility itself can be deemed subversive.

DeSantis’s executive order bars state contracts, employment, and funding from flowing to CAIR or anyone who has “provided material support” to it—a phrase so broad it could criminalize donating to a mosque that partners with CAIR on community programs. CAIR has vowed to sue, calling the move “unconstitutional” and “defamatory.” And rightly so. This isn’t counterterrorism; it’s political theater dressed in the language of national security.

But the deeper scandal lies not just in this act of domestic overreach—it’s in the glaring hypocrisy that reveals how empty the term “terrorist” has become.

Go back to Algeria in the 1950s. French colonial authorities branded the National Liberation Front (FLN)—fighters resisting decades of brutal occupation—as “terrorists.” They were hunted, tortured, imprisoned, and executed under that label. Today, the FLN is recognized as the vanguard of a legitimate anti-colonial struggle. Their “terrorism” was, in truth, resistance to systemic dehumanization. The label was never about violence per se; it was about who held the pen that wrote history—and the laws.

Fast forward to the 21st century. The United States spent trillions of dollars, launched endless wars, and dismantled civil liberties in the name of fighting al-Qaeda and its offshoots. Then, when Abu Mohammad al-Jolani—once a senior commander in al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate—rebranded himself as Ahmed al-Sharaa and emerged as the de facto leader of post-Assad Syria, something curious happened. The U.S. State Department quietly removed him from its terrorist watchlist. Western diplomats began treating him not as a wanted extremist, but as a pragmatic statesman who, in their telling, came to power through “the freest of elections.” Never mind that al-Sharaa’s forces committed documented atrocities. Never mind the ideological continuity between his past and present. What mattered was utility: he now aligned with geopolitical interests. The label evaporated not because the man changed—but because the politics did.

This is the arbitrariness at the heart of the terrorism designation. It is not a fixed moral category. It is a switch that powerful states flip on or off depending on whether a group serves or threatens their agenda. Liberation fighters become terrorists when they defy empire; terrorists become leaders when they serve it.

And now, at home, that same logic is being turned inward. Muslim civil society groups like CAIR—organizations that file lawsuits against discriminatory policies, defend worshippers facing hate crimes, and register voters—are recast as foreign threats. Why? Because vilifying them energizes a political base. Because associating Islam with terror—even without evidence—fuels a narrative of civilizational conflict that benefits those in power.

The result is not safety, but silencing. When “terrorist” can mean both an Algerian schoolteacher smuggling pamphlets under French rule and an American lawyer defending mosque vandalism victims in Florida, the word loses all meaning. It becomes what it has always been in practice: a cudgel for the powerful to strike down the inconvenient.

True security does not come from arbitrary labels or executive orders signed for headlines. It comes from justice, due process, and the courage to distinguish between those who threaten innocent lives and those who merely challenge the status quo. Until then, the word “terrorism” will remain not a shield for the public—but a sword for the State.

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

    Tuesday, November 25, 2025   No comments

In an apparent display of civility, former U.S. President Donald Trump met newly elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in the Oval Office on November 21, 2025—two figures who, despite having branded each other in incendiary terms, posed for cameras with practiced composure. Yet beneath the handshakes and shared jokes, British journalist Michael Day argues in The Independent, lies a far more revealing story: Trump’s calm demeanor and wide, artificial smiles mask a profound unease—an anxiety rooted not just in personal pride, but in the existential threat Mamdani represents to the Republican Party’s political narrative.

Just weeks before the meeting, Trump had dismissed Mamdani as a “100% insane communist,” while Mamdani, an unapologetic democratic socialist, had once labeled Trump a “fascist.” Their ideological chasm could hardly be wider. Yet in Washington, the two avoided direct confrontation, instead exchanging platitudes about their mutual love for New York City and pledges to support its growth. To Day, this surface-level harmony is a carefully constructed illusion—“a mask worn for the cameras”—hiding a deeper tension.

At 34, Mamdani—a Muslim of Indian-Ugandan heritage—has achieved what many deemed improbable: defeating the politically entrenched Cuomo dynasty and capturing City Hall on a platform of bold progressive reform, including rent freezes, universal public services, and aggressive wealth redistribution. For Trump, a man who prides himself on winning and venerates winners, Mamdani’s meteoric rise is not merely impressive—it is unsettling. As Day notes, Trump himself acknowledged Mamdani had waged “an incredible race against very smart people,” a rare admission of respect tinged unmistakably with apprehension.

Why the anxiety? Mamdani’s success signals a new, viable path for the American left: a charismatic, digitally savvy, grassroots-driven socialism that resonates powerfully with younger, multiracial, and working-class voters—exactly the coalition the GOP has struggled to neutralize. His campaign, built around a laser-focused message of lowering the cost of living and leveraging innovative digital outreach, mobilized a broad coalition that defied traditional political expectations. To Trump, whose political dominance has long depended on framing Democrats as elitist, out-of-touch, or extremist, Mamdani’s authenticity and electoral potency disrupt that script. He is not a caricature Trump can easily ridicule—he is a winner, and that makes him dangerous.

Compounding Trump’s unease is a week of personal and political turbulence: although he recently secured massive Saudi investments, he was forced—amid renewed scrutiny of the Epstein case—to release previously withheld documents, a development that reportedly angered and unnerved him. In this fragile moment, Day suggests, Trump could not afford to appear weakened or reactive in front of Mamdani. Instead, he defaulted to deflection and dark humor. When a journalist asked whether he minded Mamdani calling him a fascist, Trump quipped, “I’ve been called worse than fascist”—a line that drew laughter but betrayed strategic evasion.

Yet the stakes extend far beyond Trump’s ego. Day warns that Mamdani’s ascent risks triggering a crisis of identity within the Democratic Party itself. While the progressive left celebrates his victory as vindication, the party’s moderate wing grows increasingly wary of his socialist agenda—fearing a backlash in swing districts and national elections. This internal rift was starkly illustrated the day before the White House meeting, when 86 House Democrats joined Republicans in passing a resolution condemning “the terror of socialism.” To Day, this was a profound misstep: targeting Mamdani-style progressivism, he argues, while ignoring the very real threat of a second Trump term, reveals a party at odds with its own future.

Ultimately, Day concludes, the cordial photo-op between Trump and Mamdani obscures a seismic political shift. Mamdani embodies a new generational energy—one that challenges both Republican hegemony and Democratic orthodoxy. His rise signals the emergence of a new political archetype: pragmatic yet radical, local yet nationally resonant, deeply ideological yet electorally effective.

As Trump watches this young mayor assume power in America’s largest city, he does so not just as a former president—but as a seasoned political predator keenly aware that the rules of the game may be changing. And for the first time in years, it’s not Trump setting the pace.