Ibaitik Itsasora
******
In 1948 Albert Einstein foresaw the Israeli terrorism in Palestine that would eventually bring a catastrophe on the Jewish colonists.
******
UN at 80: How China is shaping global humanitarian aid
ooo
UN at 80: How China is shaping global humanitarian aid
23-Oct-2025
Undated photo of Chinese national flag and the flag of the United Nations. /CFP
Editor’s note: Alfred de Zayas, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, teaches international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and was a United Nations Independent Expert on International Order 2012-18. He has authored 12 books, including “Building a Just World Order” and “The Human Rights Industry” (Clarity Press). The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.
2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter on June 26, 1945 and its entry into force on October 24, 1945. The Charter is akin to a world constitution, standing at the heart of the rules-based order shared by the global community. If there were no UN, it would be imperative to create one, maybe with a different name, but with the same fundamental vocation to promote peace, protect human rights and advance the economic development of all humans on the planet.
Since its foundation, a series of norms and monitoring mechanisms have been agreed upon, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court have been established to provide adjudication of disputes and facilitate recourse and remedy for victims. Unfortunately, it’s often observed that the Security Council and General Assembly Resolutions are not fully respected in practice, and ICJ Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders are not always consistenly implemented.
After 80 years of operations in all fields of human activity, the UN urgently needs reform to better serve humanity and reflect today’s realities. The UN, its principal agencies and associated institutions must be made more representative of the world today and more responsive to natural disasters and pandemics. In particular, the UN Security Council should be expanded from 15 to 25 members, so as to give greater voice to countries from the Global South such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, Türkiye and South Africa.
Alas, 2025 is not a year of celebration, but a year of realization that the hopes of humanity to be spared the scourge of war have almost been dashed. Notwithstanding the erga omnes obligation to prevent conflict and to settle disputes through diplomacy, and despite the treaty obligations laid down in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide approved in 1948, the Israeli government, with the complicity of the “collective West” is perpetrating “genocide” on the Palestine people, as laid out in the Final Report of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry headed by former High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.
The first priority of the 80th Session of UNGA should be to stop this humanitarian crisis and ensure immediate assistance to the victims. Indeed, the UN bears responsibility for coordinating and delivering international humanitarian assistance through its specialized agencies. China actively participates in these efforts and has become one of their major financial contributors.
As a founding member of the UN, China has long served as a key pillar of the multilateral system. We remember P.C. Chang’s significant contribution to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the then vice-chair of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and an important member of the drafting committee.
The 22nd Chinese peacekeeping multifunctional engineering detachment held an exchange with the French battalion on mine clearance and explosive ordnance disposal operations in Lebanon, April 4, 2024. /CFP
China is also a key contributor to global humanitarian efforts and a supporter of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). In this spirit, Chinese President Xi Jinping highlighted, during a meeting with ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric Egger, that humanitarianism is the great consensus that can unite different civilizations.
ICRC Director General Pierre Krahenbuhl echoed this statement in an interview in 2024 – “When a country like China takes a position on that issue … we want every single country in the world to take this very seriously.” Krahenbuhl noted that China was among the first signatories to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which have been the cornerstone for upholding human dignity amid armed conflict.
During his mission to China, Krahenbuhl met with several Chinese government officials and attended a series of events including one to celebrate the 120th anniversary of the Red Cross Society of China. He emphasized the organization’s vital national role in responding to natural disasters, strengthening first-aid capabilities and promoting blood donations.
Beyond its domestic efforts, the Red Cross Society of China has also contributed to international humanitarian initiatives such as supporting the ICRC operations in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Krahenbuhl further shed light on China’s efforts in academic aspect as he pointed out, “China has invested a lot of energy and attention in developing its international academy that focuses strongly on the humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law.”
Such a commitment underscores China’s growing engagement and influence in global humanitarian affairs, especially at a moment when the closure of U.S. Agency for International Development programs by the United States has constrained international aid efforts worldwide.
China has taken up the challenge of mitigating the $54 billion aid shortfall and has provided immediate aid to many countries, including Myanmar in the aftermath of a magnitude-7.7 quake in March 2025. China also has considerable experience in this field, since foreign aid and investments via the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) have been beneficial to developing nations across Africa, Asia and South America.
As Chinese Premier Li Qiang said on September 26 before the UNGA, “Peace and development are the aspirations of the peoples of all countries … solidarity and cooperation are the most powerful drivers for human progress … When might determines right … the weak are left as prey to the strong … As members of the global family … we must work for fairness and justice … practice true multilateralism.”
Eighty years on from the founding of the UN, China stands out as a nation turning the letter and spirit of the UN Charter into action – not just words.
(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinionson X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)
oooooo
PROFESSOR SACHS: From illusion to real peace: Trump’s test in Gaza and Ukraine
ooo
PROFESSOR SACHS: From illusion to real peace: Trump’s test in Gaza and Ukraine
Real peace demands Palestinian statehood, Ukrainian neutrality and the courage to defy the war lobby.
Jeffrey D. Sachs & Sybil Fares | October 23, 2025 | Al Jazeera
United States President Donald Trump styles himself as a peacemaker. In his rhetoric, he claims credit for his efforts to end the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Yet beneath the grandstanding lies an absence of substance, at least to date.
The problem is not Trump’s lack of effort, but his lack of proper concepts. Trump confuses “peace” with “ceasefires,” which sooner or later revert to war (typically sooner). In fact, American presidents from Lyndon Johnson onward have been subservient to the military-industrial complex, which profits from endless war. Trump is merely following in that line by avoiding a genuine resolution to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine.
Peace is not a ceasefire. Lasting peace is achieved by resolving the underlying political disputes that led to the war. This requires grappling with history, international law and political interests that fuel conflicts. Without addressing the root causes of war, ceasefires are a mere intermission between rounds of slaughter.
Trump has proposed what he calls a “peace plan” for Gaza. However, what he outlines amounts to nothing more than a ceasefire. His plan fails to address the core political issue of Palestinian statehood. A true peace plan would tie together four outcomes: the end of Israel’s genocide, Hamas’s disarmament, Palestine’s membership in the United Nations, and the normalisation of diplomatic ties with Israel and Palestine throughout the world. These foundational principles are absent from Trump’s plan, which is why no country has signed off on it despite White House insinuations to the contrary. At most, some countries have backed the “Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity,” a temporising gesture.
Trump’s peace plan was presented to Arab and Muslim countries to deflect attention from the global momentum for Palestinian statehood. The US plan is designed to undercut that momentum, allowing Israel to continue its de facto annexation of the West Bank and its ongoing bombardment of Gaza and restrictions of emergency relief under the ruse of security. Israel’s ambitions are to eradicate the possibility of a Palestinian state, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made explicit at the UN in September. So far, Trump and his associates have simply been advancing Netanyahu’s agenda.
Trump’s “plan” is already unravelling, much like the Oslo Accords, the Camp David Summit, and every other “peace process” that treated Palestinian statehood as a distant aspiration rather than the solution to the conflict. If Trump really wants to end the war – a somewhat doubtful proposition – he’d have to break with Big Tech and the rest of the military-industrial complex (recipients of vast arms contracts funded by the US). Since October 2023, the US has spent $21.7bn on military aid to Israel, much of it returning to Silicon Valley.
Trump would also have to break with his donor-in-chief, Miriam Adelson, and the Zionist lobby. In doing so, he would at least represent the American people (who support a state of Palestine) and uphold American strategic interests. The US would join the overwhelming global consensus, which endorses the implementation of the two-state solution, rooted in UN Security Council resolutions and ICJ opinions.
The same failure of Trump’s peacemaking holds in Ukraine. Trump repeatedly claimed during the campaign that he could end the war “in 24 hours”. Yet what he has been proposing is a ceasefire, not a political solution. The war continues.
The cause of the Ukraine war is no mystery – if one looks beyond the pablum of the mainstream media. The casus belli was the push by the US military-industrial complex for NATO’s endless expansion, including to Ukraine and Georgia, and the US-backed coup in Kyiv in February 2014 to bring to power a pro-NATO regime, which ignited the war. The key to peace in Ukraine, then and now, was for Ukraine to maintain its neutrality as a bridge between Russia and NATO.
In March-April 2022, when Turkiye mediated a peace agreement in the Istanbul Process, based on Ukraine’s return to neutrality, the Americans and the British pushed the Ukrainians to walk out of the talks. Until the US clearly renounces NATO’s expansion to Ukraine, there can be no sustainable peace. The only way forward is a negotiated settlement based on Ukraine’s neutrality in the context of mutual security of Russia, Ukraine, and the NATO countries.
Military theorist Carl von Clausewitz famously characterised war as the continuation of politics with other means. He was right. Yet it is more accurate to say that war is the failure of politics that leads to conflict. When political problems are deferred or denied, and governments fail to negotiate over essential political issues, war too often ensues. Real peace requires the courage and capacity to engage in politics, and to face down the war profiteers.
No president since John F Kennedy has really tried to make peace. Many close observers of Washington believe that it was Kennedy’s assassination that irrevocably put the military-industrial complex in the seat of power. In addition, the US arrogance of power already noted by J William Fulbright in the 1960s (in reference to the misguided Vietnam War) is another culprit. Trump, like his predecessors, believes that US bullying, misdirection, financial pressures, coercive sanctions and propaganda will be enough to force Putin to submit to NATO, and the Muslim world to submit to Israel’s permanent rule over Palestine.
Trump and the rest of the Washington political establishment, beholden to the military-industrial complex, will not on their own account move beyond these ongoing delusions. Despite decades of Israeli occupation of Palestine and more than a decade of war in Ukraine (which started with the 2014 coup), the wars continue despite the ongoing attempts by the US to assert its will. In the meantime, the money pours into the coffers of the war machine.
Nonetheless, there is still a glimmer of hope, since reality is a stubborn thing.
When Trump soon arrives in Budapest to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his deeply knowledgeable and realistic host, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, can help Trump to grasp a fundamental truth: NATO enlargement must end to bring peace to Ukraine. Similarly, Trump’s trusted counterparts in the Islamic world – Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto – can explain to Trump the utter necessity of Palestine as a UN member state now, as the very precondition of Hamas’s disarmament and peace, not as a vague promise for the end of history.
Trump can bring peace if he reverts to diplomacy. Yes, he would have to face down the military-industrial complex, the Zionist lobby and the warmongers, but he would have the world and the American people on his side.
oooooo
erabiltzaileari erantzuten
On the UN’s 80th birthday the US and Europe are not at all in a mood for peace. They systematically violate the letter and spirit of the UN Charter, refuse to negotiate, put forward maximalist demands that have no chance of being accepted.
oooooo
The postponement of Trump’s meeting with Putin, and Trump’s new sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil shows that Trump is anything but a peace president. It escalates the conflict. The poor Ukrainians will have to pay the price. Peace is further away than it was a month ago
oooooo
erabiltzaileari erantzuten
The US accusations against Colombia have no basis in logic. To combat drug-traficking effectively, the US should start at home, stop the demand. As Colombian President Petro has noted, “ Colombia has seized more cocaine than any in the entire history of the world.”
oooooo
US unilateral coercive measures against Gustavo Petro and Colombia are illegal and arbitrary. Petro combats drug trafficking and drug production — unlike prior Colombian governments, unlike Ecuador, an ally of the US.
oooooo
US unilateral coercive measures against Gustavo Petro and Colombia are illegal and arbitrary. Petro combats drug trafficking and drug production — unlike prior Colombian governments, unlike Ecuador, an ally of the US.
oooooo
“NATO’S WORST NIGHTMARE — Russia’s Next Move Shocks the World | Prof. Jeffrey Sachs”
ooo
“NATO’S WORST NIGHTMARE — Russia’s Next Move Shocks the World | Prof. Jeffrey Sachs”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-M2u6xMoGk)
As the war drags on, Professor Jeffrey Sachs breaks down how NATO’s grand strategy has backfired and why the West now faces the very nightmare it tried to avoid. Russia holds the upper hand on the battlefield while Western governments cling to illusions of victory. Sachs exposes the real reasons peace talks have failed, the dangers of ignoring Russia’s security demands, and the growing role of the military-industrial complex that profits from endless conflict. He warns that without addressing the roots of this war — NATO expansion, corruption, and Western incompetence — the world edges closer to total collapse. A sobering look at the moment the balance of global power finally shifts.
Transkripzioa:
0:00
What’s happening is
0:02
uh Russia is uh of course the dominant
0:07
power on the battlefield and every day
0:11
Ukraine is losing large numbers of uh
0:17
soldiers to death and serious injury and
0:20
its infrastructure is being destroyed.
0:24
And Russia has said uh this war will end
0:28
when the fundamental reasons for the war
0:31
are addressed and when there is an
0:34
agreement on uh the territorial changes
0:39
that have resulted from this war.
0:42
Okay, these are conditions for
0:44
negotiation. These are conditions for uh
0:48
ending the war in some kind of
0:51
agreement. You know what Saxs just laid
0:53
out as the crux of why this conflict has
0:55
dragged on so long? Because the
0:57
conditions for peace haven’t really
0:59
changed since day one. Russia’s been
1:01
remarkably consistent about what it
1:04
wants, recognition of its security
1:06
interests and finality on territorial
1:08
issues. The tragedy is that both sides
1:10
have lost hundreds of thousands of lives
1:12
to end up right where they started,
1:14
arguing over the same fundamentals. And
1:17
the longer the West avoids addressing
1:19
those root causes, the higher the
1:21
eventual price everyone will pay
1:23
economically, politically, and morally.
1:27
The European countries and the American
1:32
neocons who used to say that Russia will
1:34
be defeated. It’s losing. It’s about to
1:36
give in now say ceasefire. Ceasefire
1:41
because of course Ukraine is losing. The
1:45
Russians say, “Well, not ceasefire. Give
1:48
us a a uh give give us a solution to the
1:53
underlying issues.” And again, this is
1:57
the reason why this meeting was
1:58
cancelled. And I don’t know what the
2:01
Russians said uh specifically, but what
2:04
they’re saying is the war will continue.
2:06
Ukraine will continue to lose until we
2:09
have a settlement that addresses the
2:12
core issues that led to this conflict.
2:15
That’s been Russia’s position basically,
2:19
not just since uh the invasion in
2:23
February 2022. But going back to the
2:26
real start of this war, which was a coup
2:29
uh that overthrew Ukraine’s government
2:31
that America backed in February 2014 and
2:36
which really started this war already 11
2:39
years ago. Uh Russia said we need to get
2:43
to the underlying reasons, especially
2:47
NATO enlargement.
2:48
This point about NATO enlargement really
2:50
can’t be overstated. Every major flash
2:53
point since the 1990s, from Yugoslavia
2:56
to Georgia to Ukraine, circles back to
2:58
that same expansionary drive. It’s as if
3:01
Washington never internalized the
3:03
security anxieties that come with
3:05
pushing military alliances right up to
3:07
another great P’s borders. History shows
3:10
that ignoring those anxieties always
3:12
ends badly. Uh, and
3:16
here we are 11 years later and
3:20
I think Trump is so out of it and so
3:23
incompetent that they can’t focus on
3:27
real issues, but we’re still talking
3:30
about the same thing. Ceasefire, no. Uh,
3:33
solve the underlying problems.
3:35
Ceasefire, no. Solve the underlying
3:38
problems. And Russia says, “Okay, if
3:41
there isn’t a solution to the underlying
3:43
problems, the war continues and we will
3:46
continue to uh take more territory and I
3:52
think the implication is eventually, you
3:54
know, Ukraine is going to lose
3:56
everything because
3:58
there’s no discussion on substance.” By
4:02
the way, Zalinski to this day, to this
4:06
day, to this hour, to this second says,
4:09
“Yes, we will be part of NATO. Yes, we
4:13
will recover every
4:16
inch or square millimeter of our
4:20
territory. Yes, Russia will pay
4:23
penalties. In other words, there’s no
4:26
discussion whatsoever on the Ukraine
4:30
side because Ukraine is ruled by a
4:34
military ha that is Zalinski who is far
4:40
past his term of office rules by martial
4:44
law. The polling data show us month by
4:49
month the overwhelming majority of
4:52
Ukrainians want this war to end at the
4:56
negotiating table, but not Zalinski for
5:01
reasons that are somewhat unclear. One
5:05
is that he’s
5:07
part of a corrupt regime which is raking
5:10
off billions of dollars. Another is that
5:14
the extreme rightwing in Ukraine would
5:17
kill him if he made peace. There are
5:19
various theories, but whatever it is,
5:21
it’s not the Ukrainian people that want.
5:24
It’s quite clear what they want.
5:27
What Sax highlights here about public
5:29
sentiment is sobering. Ordinary
5:31
Ukrainians are exhausted. They’ve lost
5:34
family, homes, futures, and yet the
5:36
leadership remains trapped in a
5:38
political and personal calculus of
5:40
survival. We’ve seen this before in long
5:43
wars, leaders fearing peace more than
5:45
defeat because peace might expose
5:47
corruption or cost them power. It’s a
5:50
heartbreaking pattern that repeats
5:51
through history.
5:53
What’s amazing though, well, I mean,
5:55
it’s not amazing. It’s just the
5:57
incompetence, the sad, tragic
6:00
incompetence of President Trump and his
6:04
group. They can’t even hold to a line
6:08
day to day.
6:10
And the European the the Europeans are
6:13
shocking. You know, you have three
6:15
European leaders, the UK uh prime
6:19
minister Starmer, President of France
6:23
Mcronone, and Chancellor of Germany
6:27
Mertz.
6:29
Their populations in those three
6:31
countries despise these three leaders.
6:34
They each have approval ratings of about
6:36
20%, disapproval ratings of about 80%.
6:41
And they’re wararm mongers and the
6:43
public is sick of this war in Europe, in
6:47
the United States, uh, in Ukraine. And
6:51
yet all they do is talk about continuing
6:54
a losing war. And Trump, just to make
6:59
absolutely 100% clear, this is now
7:03
Trump’s war. He kept saying this is
7:06
Biden’s war. Wouldn’t have happened on
7:08
his watch. Well, it’s happening on his
7:12
watch. He’s not competent enough, it
7:14
seems, and he doesn’t have a team that’s
7:17
competent enough to end the war. The way
7:20
to end the war is to address the real
7:23
issues that caused this war. to say
7:26
clearly publicly, NATO enlargement is
7:30
over. Ukraine will be neutral.
7:35
These are basic points.
7:37
Neutrality isn’t surrender. It’s
7:39
sometimes the only path to sovereignty.
7:41
Austria after World War II is a good
7:44
example. It regained independence
7:46
precisely by promising neutrality.
7:48
Ukraine could have followed a similar
7:50
model years ago, but ideology and
7:52
outside influence kept that option off
7:55
the table. And now neutrality may come
7:57
only after immense destruction.
7:59
President Putin in 2017 in an interview
8:05
in France made a statement which applies
8:08
exactly to this circumstance. He said,
8:12
“Presidents come into office with ideas,
8:16
but then men in dark suits with
8:19
briefcases,”
8:21
he meant the CIA uh and the rest of the
8:25
military-industrial complex come to the
8:28
presidents and explain things as they
8:31
are. And then you never hear of those
8:34
ideas again. And what President Putin
8:38
was saying is America is not governed by
8:43
its presidents. America is governed by
8:46
its militaryindustrial complex. Uh the
8:49
CIA, the National Security Agency, uh
8:52
the Pentagon, uh the uh armed services
8:56
committees in Congress, uh the war
8:59
profiteeers who are everywhere. There’s
9:01
big money in this war, believe me. uh
9:04
it’s uh expensive uh and uh it ends up
9:08
in Silicon Valley. It ends up with the
9:11
arms contractors. It ends up with the
9:13
retired generals working on the boards
9:15
of all of these companies. This is big
9:17
business.
9:18
Sax touches on something many prefer to
9:20
ignore. That war has become an industry
9:22
in itself. From weapons contractors to
9:25
think tank analysts, too many
9:27
livelihoods depend on perpetual
9:29
conflict. Eisenhower warned about this
9:31
70 years ago. And here we are again
9:34
watching profits rise with every
9:36
escalation. It’s a grim reminder that
9:38
peace rarely has a lobby as powerful as
9:41
war does.
9:42
War is America’s biggest business. And
9:46
uh they tell the president no you you
9:50
keep going. Uh if you have a a strong
9:54
and effective president who knows what
9:58
he’s doing and an example of that was
10:01
Dwight D. Eisenhower himself, the
10:04
supreme commander of Allied forces in
10:06
World War II, who then became president
10:10
between 1953 and January 1961,
10:16
yes, he can face them down and stop
10:18
wars. But if you have a Donald Trump, uh
10:24
he may come into office saying, “I can
10:26
end the war in 24 hours.” uh and in the
10:29
end he ends up escalating the war so
10:33
that we come ever closer to a nuclear
10:36
war.
10:37
The fact that we’re again discussing
10:39
nuclear brinkmanship in 2025 is
10:41
astonishing. Humanity has had 79 years
10:44
to learn from Hiroshima. Yet here we are
10:47
replaying Cold War scenarios with far
10:49
less capable leadership. It shows how
10:51
fragile deterrence becomes when
10:53
political theater replaces real
10:55
diplomacy.
10:57
Sounds to me like we’ve taken another
11:01
terrifying step closer to a full-fledged
11:05
war by the account in the Wall Street
11:07
Journal. I’ve not read it. It’s just
11:09
happened. Uh I happen to be in Europe
11:12
late at night, so I I can’t uh obviously
11:16
verify the account or or even know the
11:19
details of it. But what you described is
11:23
what hardliners in the
11:26
military-industrial complex press for.
11:29
They want this war to continue. They
11:32
want to test their weapons. They want to
11:35
escalate. Uh it’s extraordinarily
11:38
dangerous. Trump said he had a different
11:41
idea. In fact, he probably did, but he
11:44
is not competent enough uh consistent
11:48
enough to even understand what’s
11:51
happening in by the evidence that we
11:53
see. That’s why you have one day an
11:55
announcement of a meeting with President
11:58
Putin in Budapest and the next day it’s
12:01
called off. This kind of inconsistency
12:04
is not safe for us. It’s not safe for
12:08
our world. the amateurism, the
12:13
the lack of a a
12:17
stable viewpoint, the fact that you have
12:20
a a president who says uh uh yes, it’s
12:26
not the point of a ceasefire, it’s the
12:28
point to get to the root causes. He says
12:31
that at some moment and then he reverts
12:35
demanding an immediate ceasefire. He
12:38
says at one point sanctions are not the
12:41
point. We need to negotiate then
12:43
sanctions are put on. He says one day no
12:47
it wouldn’t be safe to use these
12:50
missiles and then the next day he
12:54
reverses.
12:56
This instability is astounding.
13:00
I think I could mention in passing, it’s
13:03
a reason why we don’t even have a
13:05
functioning open government right now
13:08
because processes like budgets that
13:12
normally would be negotiated and settled
13:14
don’t get done in our country anymore.
13:17
We’re winging it, but it’s we’re not
13:20
winging it. The uh executive office of
13:25
the president is winging it. the
13:28
military-industrial complex seems to be
13:31
in authority right now.
13:33
When Sax says the military-industrial
13:35
complex seems to be in authority, he’s
13:38
not exaggerating. The revolving door
13:41
between government, media, and defense
13:42
boards has erased accountability. The
13:45
people selling the weapons also shape
13:47
the narratives that justify their use.
13:49
That’s why policy feels so erratic,
13:52
because profit, not principle, has
13:54
become the compass. Uh it’s very very
13:59
disturbing and very dangerous and taking
14:03
us uh closer and closer to disaster.
14:05
Sax is right. The danger today isn’t
14:08
just the war itself, but the absence of
14:10
steady hands capable of managing it.
14:12
Institutions that once acted as breaks
14:14
have become engines of escalation. When
14:16
even budgets can’t be passed, how can
14:18
strategy be coherent? We’re witnessing
14:20
the unraveling of governance in real
14:22
time. And it’s a warning to every
14:24
democracy. If you outsource
14:25
statecraftraft to profit and
14:26
partisanship, chaos fills the vacuum.
oooooo
Post Colonialism in International Relations: Examining the Legacy of Colonialism in Global Politics
ooo
Post Colonialism in International Relations: Examining the Legacy of Colonialism in Global Politics
Post-colonialism has emerged as a critical lens for understanding the persistent effects of European colonialism on contemporary global politics. After the formal end of colonial rule across Africa, Asia, and Latin America in the 20th century, scholars began examining how colonial power structures continue to shape international relations long after independence flags were raised. This theoretical framework challenges traditional Western-centric perspectives by highlighting how cultural, economic, and political legacies of colonialism remain embedded in global governance systems and power dynamics.
Table of Contents
- The foundations of post-colonial theory in international relations
- Key intellectual contributions
- The ongoing legacy of colonialism in global politics
- Economic dependencies and structural inequalities
- Cultural hegemony and knowledge production
- Political structures and international institutions
- Challenging Orientalism and Western representations
- Media representation and foreign policy
- Reclaiming indigenous perspectives and knowledge
- Subaltern studies and recovering silenced voices
- Post-colonialism and global governance
- Decolonizing global institutions
- Criticisms and limitations of post-colonial theory
- Moving beyond binary thinking
- The future of post-colonial international relations
- Practical applications
The foundations of post-colonial theory in international relations
Post-colonial theory emerged from literary criticism in the 1970s and 1980s, with scholars like Edward Said, Frantz Fanon, and Gayatri Spivak questioning the Western representation of formerly colonized societies. When applied to international relations, this perspective fundamentally challenges conventional theories that often normalize Western dominance and overlook the experiences of the Global South.
The post-colonial approach rejects the Eurocentric assumption that international relations began with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, pointing out that non-European civilizations had established sophisticated diplomatic systems long before European expansion. It argues that mainstream IR theories—realism, liberalism, and even conventional constructivism—emerged from specifically Western historical experiences and often serve to justify Western hegemony rather than provide truly universal frameworks.
Key intellectual contributions
Several groundbreaking works have shaped post-colonial thought in international relations:
- Edward Said’s “Orientalism” (1978): Said demonstrated how Western academic discourse created a distorted, exotic, and inferior “Orient” that justified colonial control. This process of “othering” continues to influence how Western powers engage with formerly colonized regions.
- Frantz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth” (1961): Fanon analyzed the psychological impacts of colonization and the violence inherent in colonial systems, arguing that decolonization requires not just political independence but psychological liberation.
- Gayatri Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988): Spivak questioned whether marginalized groups can meaningfully represent themselves in global discourse when the terms of that discourse are set by dominant powers.
The ongoing legacy of colonialism in global politics
Post-colonial scholars argue that while formal colonial rule has ended, colonial patterns persist through various mechanisms in contemporary international relations:
Economic dependencies and structural inequalities
The international economic system continues to reflect colonial-era extractive relationships. Many former colonies remain trapped in unequal economic dependencies, providing raw materials and labor while importing finished goods from developed nations. International financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF, dominated by Western powers, often impose economic policies that prioritize Western economic interests over local development needs.
The concept of “neo-colonialism,” coined by Ghana’s first president Kwame Nkrumah, describes how economic control has replaced direct political rule but maintains similar power dynamics. For example, multinational corporations often extract resources from developing countries while returning minimal benefits to local populations—an arrangement strikingly similar to colonial economic models.
Cultural hegemony and knowledge production
Western epistemologies (ways of knowing) continue to dominate academia, international organizations, and global governance. Non-Western knowledge systems are frequently marginalized or treated as “local” rather than universal. This epistemological dominance shapes how global problems are defined and which solutions are considered legitimate.
International education systems often privilege Western philosophical traditions and historical narratives. University students in formerly colonized countries may learn more about European history than their own, reinforcing the idea that Western development represents the universal path to progress.
Political structures and international institutions
Post-colonial scholars note that international institutions often reflect colonial-era power distributions. The UN Security Council’s permanent members, for instance, include former colonial powers but not a single African or South Asian nation, despite these regions containing a significant portion of humanity. Similarly, voting power in the IMF and World Bank correlates strongly with colonial-era wealth accumulation.
Even the structure of the modern state system reflects European models imposed through colonization. Many post-colonial states struggle with artificial boundaries that disregarded indigenous political organizations and ethnic distributions, leading to persistent conflicts and governance challenges.
Challenging Orientalism and Western representations
A central aspect of post-colonial theory is its critique of how Western discourse represents non-Western societies. Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism demonstrates how Western scholarship, literature, and media have consistently portrayed Eastern societies as exotic, backward, irrational, and feminine—in contrast to the rational, modern, masculine West.
These representations persist in contemporary international relations discourse. Policy discussions about the “failed states” of Africa or the “terrorist threat” from the Middle East often rely on essentialist stereotypes that echo colonial-era justifications for intervention. When Western powers frame military interventions as “bringing democracy” or “promoting women’s rights,” post-colonial theorists detect echoes of the “civilizing mission” rhetoric used to justify 19th-century colonialism.
Media representation and foreign policy
Contemporary media coverage continues to reflect Orientalist biases, with non-Western societies often portrayed through lenses of violence, poverty, or exoticism rather than complexity and agency. These representations shape public opinion and, consequently, foreign policy in powerful nations.
For instance, Western media representations of Africa frequently focus on crises, conflicts, and humanitarian disasters while giving limited attention to innovation, economic growth, or political agency. This selective representation reinforces stereotypes that justify paternalistic policies and interventions.
Reclaiming indigenous perspectives and knowledge
Post-colonial theory doesn’t only critique Western dominance—it also works to recover and legitimize non-Western perspectives and knowledge systems. This project involves recognizing that concepts central to international relations—sovereignty, security, development, human rights—may be understood differently across cultural contexts.
For example, indigenous conceptions of sovereignty often emphasize relationships with land and community rather than abstract territorial control. Alternative development models might prioritize community well-being or environmental harmony over GDP growth. By bringing these perspectives into mainstream discourse, post-colonial theory enriches our understanding of international relations.
Subaltern studies and recovering silenced voices
The Subaltern Studies collective, initially focused on South Asian history, developed methodologies for recovering the experiences of marginalized groups omitted from colonial archives. These approaches have been adapted to international relations to uncover how ordinary people, women, and indigenous communities have experienced and resisted colonial and neo-colonial structures.
This work challenges the state-centric focus of traditional IR by highlighting transnational solidarity movements and everyday forms of resistance that occur outside formal political channels. It also brings attention to how colonial legacies impact different groups unequally, with gender, class, and racial hierarchies intersecting with colonial power structures.
Post-colonialism and global governance
Post-colonial perspectives offer critical insights into contemporary global governance challenges. They demonstrate how supposedly universal norms like human rights, democracy, and free markets are shaped by specific Western historical experiences and may be deployed selectively to reinforce existing power hierarchies.
For example, international human rights frameworks, while valuable, often emphasize individual civil and political rights (reflecting Western liberal traditions) over collective social and economic rights that might be prioritized in other cultural contexts. Similarly, international environmental agreements may marginalize indigenous perspectives on sustainability despite their proven effectiveness in managing natural resources.
Decolonizing global institutions
Post-colonial scholars advocate for reforming international institutions to address their colonial origins and ongoing biases. This might involve:
- Representation reforms: Restructuring decision-making bodies to ensure formerly colonized regions have meaningful influence
- Epistemological diversity: Incorporating non-Western knowledge systems and worldviews into policy frameworks
- Reparative approaches: Addressing historical injustices through mechanisms like climate reparations or debt forgiveness
- Procedural justice: Ensuring that international negotiations and rule-making processes are transparent and inclusive
Criticisms and limitations of post-colonial theory
While post-colonialism offers valuable insights, it faces several critiques within international relations:
Some scholars argue that post-colonial theory overemphasizes cultural and discursive dimensions while giving insufficient attention to material power and economic structures. Others suggest that by focusing heavily on Western dominance, post-colonial approaches may inadvertently reinforce Western-centrism rather than truly decentering it.
Critics also note that post-colonial scholarship sometimes homogenizes both “the West” and “the colonized,” overlooking internal diversities and complexities within these categories. Additionally, the academic language of much post-colonial theory can be highly abstract and inaccessible, potentially limiting its practical impact on policy and governance.
Moving beyond binary thinking
More recent post-colonial scholarship has attempted to address these limitations by developing more nuanced approaches that avoid simplistic West/non-West binaries. These approaches recognize multiple, overlapping forms of power and resistance in a globalized world where colonial legacies interact with other forces like corporate capitalism and technological change.
Some scholars advocate for a “post-post-colonial” perspective that acknowledges colonial histories while avoiding deterministic narratives that reduce complex contemporary relations to colonial continuities. This approach recognizes agency and innovation among formerly colonized peoples rather than casting them solely as victims of historical processes.
The future of post-colonial international relations
As global power shifts accelerate in the 21st century, post-colonial perspectives become increasingly relevant. The rise of non-Western powers like China, India, and Brazil creates opportunities to reshape international norms and institutions, potentially addressing some colonial legacies while creating new power dynamics that require critical examination.
Climate change, migration, technological disruption, and other global challenges demand collaborative solutions that draw on diverse knowledge systems. Post-colonial approaches can help ensure these solutions avoid reproducing colonial patterns of domination and exclusion.
Within academia, efforts to “decolonize the curriculum” in international relations programs reflect growing recognition that understanding global politics requires engaging with perspectives beyond the Western canon. This intellectual diversification may gradually reshape how future practitioners approach international affairs.
Practical applications
Beyond theory, post-colonial insights have practical applications in diplomacy, development work, conflict resolution, and other fields. Practitioners informed by post-colonial perspectives might:
- Practice reflexivity: Critically examining their own cultural assumptions and positional power
- Prioritize local knowledge: Engaging meaningfully with community perspectives rather than imposing external models
- Recognize historical context: Understanding how colonial legacies shape contemporary challenges
- Support indigenous leadership: Following rather than directing local change processes
By bringing these approaches into practice, post-colonial theory can help transform international relations from an arena of domination to one of genuine dialogue and cooperation.
What do you think? Has the international system truly moved beyond colonialism, or do you see colonial patterns persisting in global politics today? How might international institutions be reformed to better address the legacies of colonialism while creating more equitable governance systems?
oooooo
De Zayas: Snapback Will Not Have West’s Expected Impact; US Covets Venezuela’s Resources
Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, a prominent American lawyer, jurist, and former UN Independent Expert, expressed doubt regarding the effectiveness of activating the snapback mechanism against Iran. Commenting on U.S. actions against Venezuela, he deemed them violations of international treaties and acts of aggression aimed at seizing Venezuela’s rich oil and mineral reserves.
Tehran – ISNA – Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, a prominent American lawyer, jurist, and former UN Independent Expert, expressed doubt regarding the effectiveness of activating the snapback mechanism against Iran. Commenting on U.S. actions against Venezuela, he deemed them violations of international treaties and acts of aggression aimed at seizing Venezuela’s rich oil and mineral reserves.
In an exclusive interview with ISNA, Alfred-Maurice de Zayas addressed the snapback mechanism and U.S. tensions in the Caribbean.
Sanctions are Illegal and Ineffective
De Zayas first highlighted the negative human impact of international sanctions against Iran, stating that the action is “not only a human rights scandal, but evidence of the corruption of the core principles of the United Nations—the promotion of peace and development through multilateral action and solidarity.”
He noted the recent attempts by several Western countries, including the European Troika (UK, France, and Germany), to maintain restrictions against Iran via the snapback mechanism stipulated in UNSC Resolution 2231. This was done despite the Troika’s failure to fulfill their own commitments to normalize trade with Iran, thus lacking the moral and legal standing to use the mechanism. The snapback, which restored previously lifted international sanctions, took effect on September 29. Iran has deemed this action “illegal and lacking legal standing.”
Responding to whether these sanctions would achieve the results the West hopes for, de Zayas pointed to the human suffering caused by sanctions: “Economic sanctions kill.” He referenced a study in The Lancet estimating that half a million extra deaths occur worldwide due to a lack of medicine, medical equipment, and inadequate nutrition resulting from sanctions.
The American jurist stressed: “This is, in fact, tantamount to the hijacking of the United Nations by hegemonic powers who desperately seek to maintain their power at the expense of other States.” He argued that the Security Council acts ultra-vires (beyond its legal authority) because its decisions must adhere to Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter, which affirm the sovereign equality of states and the prohibition of interfering in their internal affairs.
De Zayas expressed serious reservations about the snapback’s effectiveness: “I seriously doubt that the snapback sanctions will have the effect desired by the US, France, and UK. These countries are only trying to impose an anachronistic unipolar, neo-colonial order on the rest of the world, which is incompatible with the UN Charter.” He recalled the abuse of UN sanctions against Iraq from 1991 to 2003, which led to over a million casualties and the resignation of two UN Assistant Secretary-Generals, with Denis Halliday calling the sanctions a “form of genocide.”
Iran Should Consider NPT Withdrawal
Offering his view on Tehran’s reaction to these illegal actions, de Zayas stated: “I think the time has come for Tehran to withdraw from the NPT by invoking article X, as North Korea did in 2003.” He argued that Iran’s national security is under constant threat, noting: “Alone the attacks by the US and Israel on Iran in June 2025 would more than justify such action.”
He clarified that Article X permits a party to withdraw if “extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.”
The jurist also criticized the biased performance of the IAEA and Western media: “Part of the problem is the biased reporting by the western media and the high level of disinformation. An additional problem is the hijacking of institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, which hitherto has proven to be largely in the service of the ‘collective West’.” He added that if the IAEA were serious, it would focus on the danger posed by Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the fact that—unlike Tehran—Israel’s program “is shrouded in secrecy.”
US Actions Against Venezuela Driven by Greed for Resources
Addressing Washington’s intensified pressure on Venezuela and Cuba under the guise of combating drug trafficking, de Zayas stated: “Such actions by the United States violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter” and several other international and regional treaties.
He pointed out the absurdity of targeting Venezuela, which has strict penal legislation against drug trafficking, noting that the country is “in no way shape or form a country that tolerates or promotes drug-trafficking,” a fact corroborated by UN reports.
De Zayas condemned the actions of the U.S. military in the Caribbean, stating: “US sinking of vessels in the Caribbean constitutes ‘aggression’” within the meaning of GA Resolution 3314 and the 2010 Kampala definition. He underscored that this action also violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects the right to life, emphasizing that “even drug traffickers have a right to life and a right to due process.”
The retired UN expert identified the true motive behind Washington’s focus on Venezuela: “Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world as well as enormous gold reserves and other valuable and rare minerals.” He stated that the continuous goal of U.S. administrations since 1998 has been the overthrow of the Venezuelan government to install a puppet regime that would promptly privatize oil and mineral extraction for the benefit of U.S. investors and transnational corporations.
Concluding his interview, de Zayas dismissed the “war on drugs” as a “cheap pretext,” asserting that if the U.S. were truly serious, it would combat drug trafficking primarily by taking effective measures to stop U.S. domestic demand and internal networks, or by taking action against some of its favored allies in Latin America that are genuinely involved in drug trafficking.
oooooo
erabiltzaileari erantzuten
Congresswoman Luna is appalled that “EU politicians condemn peace talks between Russia and Ukraine while none of them are the ones fighting on the front lines …advocating for the erasure of entire bloodlines of Russian and Ukrainian families. It’s sociopathic.”
oooooo
US Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (Republican from Florida) is right in accusing EU officials of being “comfortable sending youth from both nations to die if it serves their own self-interests.”
oooooo
Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas·
Gaza genocide: A crime Israel did not commit alone, says Special Rapporteur
ooo
Gaza genocide: A crime Israel did not commit alone, says Special Rapporteur
See, ikus ondokoa: From the River to the Sea: Ibaitik Itsasora (172) —> Gaza genocide: A crime Israel did not commit alone, says Special Rapporteur
oooooo
erabiltzaileari erantzuten
The General Assembly adopted today, 29 October, a Resolution ordering the lifting of the US embargo against Cuba by a vote of 165 in favour, 7 against and 12 abstentions. It is a disgrace that 19 countries failed to join the consensus. This was the 33rd such Resolution.
oooooo
Hitherto the UN has failed to guarantee peace, mostly because of the hegemonic approach of the collective West. Perhaps the new 21st Century Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity may consolidate Eurasia in the interests of its peoples, and thus advance security for all
oooooo
“American Leadership Is Broken”: Jeffrey Sachs’ Attack On Trump Leaves Diplomats And Allies Stunned
From dezayasalfred.wordpress.com
ooo
“American Leadership Is Broken”: Jeffrey Sachs’ Attack On Trump Leaves Diplomats And Allies Stunned
“American Leadership Is Broken”: Jeffrey Sachs’ Attack On Trump Leaves Diplomats And Allies Stunned
(https://youtu.be/PHo4eddy7l4)
“American Leadership Is Broken”: Jeffrey Sachs’ Attack On Trump Leaves Diplomats And Allies Stunned
Transkripzioa:
0:00
Let me spend just a few minutes talking
0:03
about the situation in the world right
0:05
now because the last couple of days have
0:08
been dramatic. Now there is no guarantee
0:12
that we avoid catastrophe because the
0:16
world’s not well led uh and uh the world
0:20
is in a very unstable
0:24
uh
0:25
situation because of all the things that
0:29
we’ve been discussing. uh of course the
0:32
climate crisis, all of the upheavalss in
0:37
the world economy, even aside from the
0:40
interventions of uh uh leadersh
0:51
than than I. So this is uh something um
0:55
quite dramatic. But another thing that’s
0:58
very dramatic is the geopolitical
1:00
changes that are underway. They are
1:03
remarkable.
1:05
They’re very dangerous, but on the
1:08
whole,
1:10
not bad. Actually, what’s happening is
1:13
that a familiar world led so-called by
1:19
the United States and Europe is no
1:22
longer led by the United States and
1:24
Europe.
1:25
uh it was presumptuous to be led by the
1:28
United States and Europe to begin with.
1:32
Uh it’s actually the end of a very long
1:35
cycle that dates back to 1492
1:39
uh and onward because it started with a
1:44
a voyage that was a little bit uh went
1:49
arai and changed the world uh
1:52
fundamentally. Um,
1:56
and they say that
1:58
how do you know that uh Christopher
2:01
Columbus was an economist by the way?
2:04
Uh,
2:06
he didn’t know where he was going. He
2:08
didn’t know where he was when he got
2:10
there and it was all on a government
2:12
grant. Uh, so this is part for the
2:16
course. But um the world became a
2:20
Europeanled world with a a lot of
2:24
cruelty and a lot of inequality and a
2:27
lot of domination. Um and with
2:31
a lot of remarkable technological
2:34
development uh that came along with it
2:37
but that was utilized as a form of power
2:39
and oppression as well. And the United
2:42
States dominated the world for about a
2:45
half a century after 1945.
2:50
Now we’re in a very different world and
2:52
um the uh voices of other parts of the
2:57
world are really important and um
3:02
growing and that means that in the media
3:05
and in the political life in the western
3:07
world there’s a lot more anxiety
3:09
actually than there is in China for
3:12
example or in India where it’s not
3:15
pessimistic. It’s not feeling that the
3:17
world’s falling apart. It’s feeling that
3:19
the world is changing in the right
3:21
direction actually and I would say if
3:24
you look at opinion surveys in Africa
3:26
there’s a tremendous amount of optimism
3:28
actually Africa is the most optimistic
3:30
single continent uh in the world uh if
3:33
you look at opinion surveys so the
3:37
world’s changing and it leads to a lot
3:39
of anxiety and the anxiety is highest in
3:42
the United States because nobody likes
3:45
to be pushed off the perch. Uh but the
3:48
fact of the matter is um the world’s
3:51
becoming a lot more interesting,
3:53
diverse, interconnected.
3:56
You’re a very diverse group, but not
3:58
quite diverse enough. There aren’t are
4:01
there any Chinese faces here? No,
4:04
we have somebody from Hong Kong.
4:06
Okay, good. Hong Kong, we were just
4:07
there. It’s wonderful. Uh and uh India.
4:12
Great. Okay. So between the two, you’re
4:16
40% of the world population, but not not
4:19
exactly 40% of this room. So it’s just
4:23
to say we don’t have to have a complete
4:26
demographic equality, but you’re a very
4:30
diverse group, which is extremely
4:31
important, very important. Uh and um the
4:35
world’s even more diverse, if I could
4:37
put it that way. So we need to strive
4:40
for uh for that and viewed
4:44
in that perspective. My own view is
4:49
I’ll say a grim statement and then an
4:52
optimistic statement. If we don’t blow
4:54
things up, which is possible,
4:57
then things are going to be okay. uh and
5:00
by that I mean the world that is taking
5:03
shape will be more equal, more open,
5:07
actually benefiting from a lot of the
5:10
breakthroughs in technology.
5:12
The real worry I have is just disaster
5:16
in the in the short term because
5:19
my country is the worst lead that it’s
5:21
ever been and our political system has
5:23
collapsed. So we have one person rule
5:26
which is not exactly the way to run a a
5:29
society of 335 million people and $30
5:32
trillion of output but that’s what what
5:36
we have for the moment. But if we can
5:39
avoid the catastrophes, we actually not
5:42
just rhetorically and not just
5:43
optimistically, we really have a lot of
5:45
solutions in this world for food
5:49
production, for sustainable energy, for
5:53
uh better education and health care
5:56
systems, for all sorts of things that
5:58
are completely wonderful.
6:01
They’re not they’re getting discovered.
6:04
They’re getting developed. You’re
6:05
pioneering many of them. They’re not
6:07
getting undertaken at any at the scale
6:10
that they need and the pace that they
6:11
need by any means, but they could be
6:15
because there’s no
6:17
fundamental
6:19
shortfall of resources or knowhow. We’re
6:23
not running out of particular minerals
6:26
so that we can’t do this. We’re not
6:28
running out of land so that we’re in a
6:31
struggle for who eats and who doesn’t
6:34
eat. We’re not running out of energy
6:36
because solar radiation
6:40
is about 5,000 times our power usage on
6:44
the planet. So if we deploy uh solar
6:48
power which is now cheaper than any
6:50
other kind of power.
6:53
We’re we’re not in an energy shortage as
6:56
well. We’re not in a knowhow shortage
7:00
but we are in a fairness shortage. We’re
7:03
in a niceness shortage. We’re in a
7:05
calmness shortage. Uh we’re in a
7:08
geopolitical crisis. And we are with a
7:12
lot of instability from
7:14
all of the upheavalss of climate which
7:17
are going to get worse for the next 50
7:19
years almost no matter what we do
7:22
because underlying our physical reality
7:26
is a lot of warming built into the
7:29
system and a lot of shocks that will
7:31
come from that. That doesn’t mean that
7:33
the impacts necessarily get worse
7:35
because things can get buffered. We can
7:38
become more resilient. We can become
7:40
adapted. But the climate itself is going
7:43
to become more dangerous shortly. So
7:46
this is our state of affairs.
7:50
Now what specifically happened yesterday
7:53
was the US
7:56
declared itself outside of the world
7:59
trade system. Two weeks ago, the US
8:01
declared itself outside of the climate
8:04
challenge. Uh, three weeks ago, the US
8:07
declared itself out of the
8:08
sustainability challenge. Four weeks
8:11
ago, the US declared itself outside of
8:13
the WH.
8:15
All right.
8:17
Honestly, it doesn’t get dumber than
8:19
this
8:20
really. But the US is 4.1% of the world
8:25
population. And as I said the other 95%
8:30
I don’t see things diminishing in
8:34
intensity of purpose but rather
8:36
increasing and there are a lot of very
8:39
good things that are happening even
8:41
because of the United States strangeness
8:44
of behavior right now. For example,
8:47
China and India which have been at
8:50
loggerheads for
8:53
60 years for more than that for almost
8:57
80 years for a complicated reason that
8:59
the British drew a an arbitrary
9:03
borderline in the Himalayas. uh and that
9:06
has meant border dispute and conflict
9:09
between China and India since India
9:11
gained independence in 1947 and the
9:14
people’s republic of China was formed in
9:16
1949 and they’re still fighting over a
9:18
line that a guy named McMahon drew
9:22
arbitrarily in 1880 never having been up
9:25
to the Himalayas where he drew the line
9:27
and there is by the way a theorem that I
9:30
kind of subscribe to that all problems
9:32
in the world go back to the British Um,
9:35
so that’s true in the Middle East. It’s
9:37
true in the Himalayas. It’s true in m
9:39
much much of the world. Yes, it’s true
9:41
all over Africa. It is actually a very
9:44
good rule of thumb. It’s not it’s not
9:47
quite a proven theorem, but it’s a very
9:49
good rule of thumb. Um, in any event,
9:54
the Indian and Chinese foreign ministers
9:57
got together and said, “What are we
9:58
fighting about? Uh, we should trade
10:00
more. We should invest more.” And then
10:02
very positive statements came from Prime
10:04
Minister Modi and from President Xi.
10:07
Then uh last week three other countries
10:10
that are at loggerheads for no reason in
10:13
the world honestly. China, Korea, and
10:17
Japan.
10:20
They are divided because the United
10:21
States says you’re on our side and
10:23
they’re the enemy. Uh to China and Japan
10:27
and I mean to Korea and Japan visa v
10:30
China. The three got together because
10:32
they see the US not such a great you
10:36
know protector of their interests and
10:39
they said we need to improve relations
10:43
with each other. This is very very good.
10:47
And if you think about Iran and Saudi
10:51
Arabia for example, which was defined by
10:55
the US to be the uh you know the the the
11:01
fundamental schism of Shia and Sunni and
11:05
so much of US policy was playing the
11:08
Sunnis against Shia, Iran and so forth.
11:12
They made a raproma last year
11:16
which China helped to broker in a very
11:18
wise way. The United States would never
11:21
have done it and never even have thought
11:23
about it. But uh China was very helpful.
11:27
So truly
11:29
I’m not so pessimistic at all. I just
11:32
see the world changing and I can
11:34
understand the pessimism in the
11:37
newspapers that I happen to read in the
11:40
US because they’re all geared around the
11:42
idea of the US as number one. And if you
11:46
put that aside, I like a world in which
11:50
China’s playing a much larger role and
11:52
India is playing a much larger role and
11:54
the African Union’s playing a much
11:56
larger role and Saudi Arabia is playing
11:58
a much larger role. To me, this a great
12:00
world. It’s it’s a world of diversity,
12:03
much better food, uh much better
12:06
conversation, much better places to
12:08
visit, much more fun uh in uh
12:11
conferences and meetings and problem
12:13
solving and all the rest. Uh but if you
12:17
just happen to be a US strategist, it
12:19
looks very grim and dangerous and so
12:23
forth. So I don’t buy into the danger
12:27
part. I do buy into well I do buy into
12:30
the danger part for the reasons I said
12:32
but I don’t buy into the inevitability
12:34
of
12:35
crisis. So what I would really like you
12:39
guys to do is to stay on the
12:43
the networking course and the practical
12:46
course and the problemolving
12:49
course and
12:52
I want us to help you to do that. Uh so
12:58
and just to be very clear you know SDSN
13:01
youth is not to empower youth per se.
13:06
It’s to help solve global problems of
13:08
which you have a lot of solutions. So
13:11
that’s a little bit different. Uh
13:15
we have a little more access than you do
13:17
to some places uh being older and gray
13:21
hair, but you uh know how to fix our
13:26
phones and computers a lot better than
13:28
we do. Uh and what’s going on with the
13:31
the latest apps and how to use them and
13:34
so forth. And that’s actually unique
13:37
knowledge in our world right now. Um,
13:39
and so it’s really important that you’re
13:42
at the table. It’s true, you should be
13:44
at the table for two reasons. One, to
13:47
protect the interests of your generation
13:49
against uh uh 78-year-old US presidents
13:53
that don’t know how to think ahead. So
13:56
that’s true, but I don’t think that’s
13:58
the main reason you should be at the
14:00
table. The main reason you should be at
14:02
the table is you can help move this
14:03
agenda forward in a very significant
14:06
way.
14:07
So I had good experience when I was
14:11
young. I
14:13
luckily thrust into places where I could
14:17
do something at an early stage of my
14:19
career. And um thank God it worked cuz
14:23
otherwise that would have been the end
14:25
of it. Uh but in any event um
14:29
you can do a lot but I also know um we
14:33
can help you uh too because you learn
14:37
you learn a lot actually along the way
14:40
as well. Um,
14:42
every day I learn something that I say,
14:46
I cannot believe I didn’t know that for
14:50
the last 50 years of trying to know what
14:53
I know and pretty fundamental stuff
14:56
every day, which is weird to me actually
14:59
cuz by now it should be kind of wrote,
15:01
but it’s not wrote at all. There’s just
15:03
so much to learn and I kind of walk
15:06
around my whole life with a book in my
15:09
hand or now with a with an ebook or on
15:11
my phone or something reading reading
15:13
reading every day and learning pretty
15:16
basic things actually which is annoying
15:19
uh really annoying because it should
15:22
have been done already uh but it’s not.
15:24
So all of that is to say we can help you
15:28
uh and I can help you and I can help you
15:30
network and I can help you learn things.
15:33
So don’t presume you know everything but
15:36
don’t presume that you don’t know what
15:39
you’re seeing with your own eyes about
15:41
things that can be done. So that’s
15:43
really the balance that’s extremely
15:45
important.
15:47
Now,
15:52
what’s going to happen after 2030? Let
15:54
me say a few words about that, cuz
15:56
you’re going to play a big role in that.
15:58
Um,
16:02
obviously, we’re not going to achieve
16:03
what we set out to achieve in 20 2015,
16:08
September 25th, 2015, when Pope Francis
16:12
ushered in the sustainable development
16:14
goals at the UN. The agenda was pretty
16:17
optimistic beforehand
16:19
at the time. It was very stretch goals.
16:23
It would have required a lot of
16:28
capacity and working together to make
16:31
them happen. Um,
16:34
of course, we just didn’t get the major
16:36
powers to work very hard on any of this.
16:39
Uh, the only one that made a major
16:42
effort in my view was China. Actually,
16:45
uh, Europe said a few things at the
16:47
beginning, but Europe got caught in this
16:51
Ukraine war, which to my mind was a just
16:54
a disastrous
16:57
mistake because the United States
17:00
doesn’t know how to make peace. Uh, and
17:02
uh, blew the chance after 1991 to help
17:07
in help create a true collective
17:10
security arrangement in Europe. Instead,
17:12
it expanded NATO. But I don’t want to go
17:15
there just to say the US didn’t try,
17:18
Europe didn’t try very much. China
17:20
launched the Bel and Road Initiative,
17:22
which is very big and positive thing. Uh
17:26
Africa launched the African continental
17:28
free trade area, which is a very
17:30
important thing uh and a very positive
17:33
development.
17:35
But the world as a whole for the major
17:38
powers didn’t try very hard. So we’re
17:41
reaching and
17:44
I don’t want to go into it but my view
17:47
is uh the US at the University of North
17:51
Carolina concocted something called SARS
17:54
cove 2 and made a pandemic. That’s
17:56
another long story. Uh but um
18:01
we just lost a lot of time. So what are
18:03
we going to do? My hope personally and
18:07
this is something we can discuss longer
18:09
is that we continue under the framework
18:13
of the sustainable development goals.
18:16
And the reason is it’s taken 10 years to
18:20
have governments understand a bit about
18:23
how to make such a complicated
18:25
multi-dimensional
18:27
programming process because it’s not
18:30
simple to do this to plan for 17 major
18:34
objectives long-term planning strategy
18:38
and so forth. Now the goals won’t stay
18:40
exactly the same but I don’t want to
18:42
redo everything to have a new set of
18:45
goals and uh a new framework because
18:49
honestly to my mind it would be
18:53
it it may be constructive in bringing
18:56
new voices in to be sure. So I don’t
18:58
want to rule out deliberations which
19:00
will take place but I don’t think we
19:02
should throw out everything because it
19:04
just would be a major loss in time sync
19:07
and in our world today the US will walk
19:09
away from the table anyway and it just
19:11
may be very hard to get a framework
19:15
other framework. So I’m hoping we
19:17
continue under this broad rubric
19:20
resetting
19:22
adding no doubt something about
19:24
artificial intelligence as SDG-18 or
19:27
repackaging uh repackaging some of the
19:30
uh object
oooooo
Geure herriari, Euskal Herriari dagokionez, hona hemen gure apustu bakarra:
We Basques do need a real Basque independent State in the Western Pyrenees, just a democratic lay or secular state, with all the formal characteristics of any independent State: Central Bank, Treasury, proper currency1, out of the European Distopia and faraway from NATO, being a BRICS partner…
Euskal Herriaren independentzia eta Mikel Torka
eta
Esadazu arren, zer da gu euskaldunok egiten ari garena eta zer egingo dugun
gehi
MTM: Zipriztinak (2), 2025: Warren Mosler
(Pinturak: Mikel Torka)
Gehigarriak:
MTM klase borrokarik gabe, kontabilitate hutsa da
oooooo
1 This way, our new Basque government will have infinite money to deal with. (Gogoratzekoa: Moneta jaulkitzaileko kasu guztietan, Gobernuak infinitu diru dauka.)
