Tag: Trump
US-Israel Attack on Iran: Time to Implement the Global Security Initiative
Starting on 28th February 2026, the United States of America working hand-in-hand with Israel have been striking at Tehran with heavy military artillery in an operation that has come to be dubbed “Epic Fury.” Less than a day in, several high ranking officials in Iran’s establishment had already lost their lives most notably, the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Gen Mohammad Pakpour, the Defence Minister Brig Gen Aziz Nasirzadeh, and the Defence Council secretary Ali Shamkhani.
With the Red Crescent reporting that at least 200 Iranians have already lost their lives too and more than 700 injured, the US-Israel assault has undoubtedly raised questions pertaining to its legitimacy under international law.
Per the United Nations Charter (Article 2(4)), it is established that states are to refrain from the use of force targeting other sovereigns. What Washington has sought to do then, is argue that its mission in Iran is covered by the exception of self-defence provided for in the said instrument’s Article 51. In their public statements, they have described the attacks as “pre-emptive.”
In the history of warfare however, one will hardly find a party who upon resorting to violence does not bother to justify their conduct as warranted. Consequently, standards have been devised overtime for the international community to test claims of this nature. For self-defence, as Marko Milanovic a public international law scholar at the University of Reading has explained, the party seeking to rely on it must provide unambiguous evidence either of the harm already caused or destruction likely to have been caused if the measure in question had not been taken. In other words, they cannot rely on speculation or generalizations.
Unfortunately, all that President Trump has said so far falls short of this bar. The American leader for instance, has purported that Tehran is pursuing development of Nuclear weaponry something that is not only denied by the Middle Eastern nation but is also disputed by third parties. The International Energy Atomic Agency thus, has severally retained that there is no information supportive of Washington’s assertions. Oman’s Foreign Minister who also doubles as the chief mediator of the US-Iran talks coming immediately before all hell broke loose has equally confirmed that Iran had committed to “never, ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb.”
What these developments appear to be depicting then is but an extension of aggression that has come to be the hallmark of Trump 2.0. Think here about the tariffs regime that even his own Supreme Court declared illegal, the threats to forcefully takeover Greenland and Canada, the invasion of Venezuela etc. If the world does not wake up to the new reality in time, we risk plunging ourselves in a global order ruled by the laws of the jungle where survival for the fittest becomes the order of the day.
In response to this state of affairs, one of the most convincing alternatives is the Global Security Initiative (GSI) put forward by President Xi Jinping of China in 2022 at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference. In part, the GSI can be understood as a modification of Beijing’s broad approach to foreign policy to fit the needs of international peace. Three of its six core tenets thus (i.e. “respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries”, “peacefully resolving differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and consultation”, and “taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously”) directly replicate the principles of “win-win” and “mutual respect” that the global power has championed elsewhere.
At the same time, GSI seeks to reimagine norms devised many years ago in order to suit the changing times. Emphasis on “abiding by the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter” is one such example the other being “commitment to the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security.” The latter also best understood as the principle of indivisible security (IS) goes back to the Cold War particularly upon the entry into force of the Helsinki Final Act. What the Communist Party of China (CCP) has done for IS is to contend that a country’s security interests are not only inseparable from those of her immediate neighbours but also those of the rest of the world just as much. This becomes especially important given how much globalization has taken effect.
Crucially, GSI has proven itself to be thorough including through Beijing’s position papers on Afghanistan and the Israel-Palestine war as well as mediation that the CCP has done between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, Fighting factions in Myanmar, Thailand and Cambodia etc. If the world could build on this momentum, there is a good chance that the voices of hegemony and repression will be defeated.
Joshua Kingdom is a Research Fellow at the Development Watch Centre.
Inside the China-Canada Trade Deal
Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, is currently one of my favorite leaders in the West. His speech at the recently concluded World Economic Forum was a breath of fresh air, rarely breathed from a Western leader. The essence of his message was that “middle powers” should unite against economic coercion by great powers. Profound! Without mincing words, he called out American hegemony, denounced the weaponization of economic integration, and the exploitation of the vulnerabilities of supply chains. Whereas these ideas were not new, they were unanticipated coming from a Western leader. Carney had just visited China between January 13th -17th where he met Chinese leaders including President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Qiang, and Chairman Zhao Leji of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. The last time a Canadian Prime Minister had been to Beijing was nine years ago in 2017.
Carney took opportunity of the visit to commend the exemplary leadership of Xi, noting that the partnership between their two countries “sets us up well for the new world order.” His proposition to the Chinese leader had a list of key items for strategic partnership. Carney sought to partner with China on energy, finance, agriculture, security, and multilateralism.
China is a major trade partner of Canada. It consumes $30 billion worth of Canadian exports annually. This translates into 400,000 jobs for Canadians. The relations between the two countries had been strained in the past. The former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had brushed China the wrong way on a number of occasions, including such incidents as the arrest of the Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou, in 2018. These are the scratches that Carney now meant to mend.
Prime Minister Carney has a clear understanding of the world his country finds itself in today. Unlike most Western leaders, he seems undeluded by prejudices about China which are centered on the ideological disparities between the East and West. His narrative has been consistent about highlighting the fact that the world has changed, and China is now a key partner in setting up Canada for the new world order.
Unlike the USA, China has a stable political leadership under the Chinese Communist Party, which has been in power since 1949 and is consistent about its principles, both domestically and abroad. Carney understands, and notes that China offers a more predictable relationship with Canada as opposed to Donald Trump’s America. With China, what you see is what you get.
Canada has not had an easy time with its historical partner, USA, ever since Trump started his second term. Upon coming to office, Trump imposed tariffs on Canada’s key sectors like metals and automotives. He then moved to arbitrarily end a longstanding North American free trade agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico.
While Trump is rendering America’s trade agreements with Canada irrelevant and their future uncertain, China is moving to drastically reduce tariffs on Canadian goods, such as canola seed from 84% to around 15% by the beginning of March. It is also removing tariffs on Canadian lobsters, crabs and peas. On the other hand, Canada is also removing tariffs from Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) from 100% to 6.1% for the first 49,000 vehicles imported each year. Carney also promised that this quota could rise up to 70,000 in half a decade. This is a significant step for China, which is the world’s largest producer of EVs, accounting for 70% of global production.
It is obvious what these developments spell for the US, politically and economically. Whereas Trump had initially been indifferent towards the recalibration of the Canada-China relationship by Carney, in the wake of signing these trade deals, he has stood up and threatened to hit Canada with 100% levies on all goods and products going to the USA. This only confirms the case Carney has been making about the weaponization of economic integration by the US and the need for middle powers to rise up against the hegemonic coercion they suffer from big powers. But it is latently clear to Carney that in order to build a stronger Canadian economy, he needs to diversify his trade partnerships throughout the world, and escape the hostage of Trump’s America.
With America threatening a trade war against multiple allies, Carney is spot on about the risks involved in relying highly on USA a s a trade and security partner. Renewing and improving the China-Canada relationship is therefore important in guarding against unforeseen reactions from an unhinged Trump administration.
Carney understands well that largely due to American hegemony, the rules-based world order is fading and the era of great power rivalry is here. The rules-based order was celebrated for its principles and predictability, neither of which can be spoken about today. It is a fiction that lost its power of collective faith, and now the world comes to a rupture from that order, instead of a transition.
The writer is a senior research fellow, Development Watch Center.
International “Low:” Trump’s Kidnap of Maduro
On 3rd January 2026, American President Donald J. Trump announced the capture of Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela. This followed a joint U.S. military extraction in Caracas, codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve. Both Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores de Maduro, who was kidnapped alongside him, are now facing criminal prosecution in New York based on a 2020 indictment by the U.S. Department of Justice. They are charged with several offences, including narco-terrorism and drug trafficking. In court, Maduro pleaded not guilty to the charges. He maintained that he was a kidnapped head of state, not a criminal.
Politically, these events seem peculiarly “Trumpist,” and whereas they have Trump’s signature of unconventionality, they are not new in the conduct of American foreign policy. It is difficult to claim that America has been an international law-abiding country before Trump. Trump is simply blunt, unsophisticated, or, we can say, honest, about what he does. Any other American President would have done what Trump did and not got much personal attention because they would insincerely hide behind claims of fighting for democracy and human rights, rather than seeking regime change to benefit American selfish interests. And even though Trump has claimed to have been partly influenced by the need to fight narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, he is mostly blunt about the fact that he did this to take control of Venezuela’s oil from the Chinese and Russians, and is already discussing with oil executives about going in to do business.
We can note multiple previous events where America has deposed legitimate leaders under various pretexts. For instance, George H. W. Bush in December 1989 invaded, deposed, and captured Gen Manuel Noriega of Panama on claims of racketeering and drug-trafficking. So, the Maduro episode is just part of an old American script. What Trump may earn from the claims of fighting drug trafficking is domestic support, since he wins approval from a large constituency of Americans who are concerned about border security and immigration from countries like Venezuela. It also domestically legitimises his absolutely illegal operation.
Internationally, there has also been backlash against Trump by both Western and non-Western countries. Politicians in the United Kingdom and Australia, both American allies, have issued statements and parliamentary briefings questioning the operation. This event indeed creates a reference point for any other country in a position to bully a weaker neighbour to do so under similar excuses as America’s. This also indicts Western countries, which galvanised for war and sanctioned Russia under claims that Putin had breached international law by invading Ukraine, yet they cannot lift a finger against Trump, who kidnapped a legitimate President. It shows how hypocritical global politics can be, where selfish interests are presented and defended as global values and norms. Of course, countries like Russia, China and Iran strongly stand opposed to America’s actions in Venezuela and issued diplomatic protests. For countries in Latin America, fears have been exacerbated for what could happen to any of them since Trump is now proclaiming the “Donroe Doctrine” in line with the Monroe Doctrine under which America claimed entitlement to its “backyard” in the Western hemisphere, where all these countries are situated. The Cuban President, Miguel Díaz-Canel, obviously one of Trump’s targets now, sent a strong protest message to Washington against their actions in Venezuela.
Another political effect of this event is that a power vacuum has been created in Venezuela. There are already clear signs of power friction in the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). The interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, seems to lack approval from her peers, who reasonably may perceive her as an agent of the Americans. She has already shown signs of cosying up to Trump, who has been emphatic about the intention to have a friendly regime in Venezuela. Instability could likely emerge from these fault lines. Whether that creates space for strong opposition candidates, especially Juan Guaidó, to emerge or America will forcefully dictate who remains in charge is left to future history. Nevertheless, Trump announced that America would “temporarily” run Venezuela, with the responsibility to oversee this being under the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio.
Economically, whereas the events have made for dramatic headlines, there have not been fundamental shifts in the global oil market. This may be a sign of the growing energy diversification and resilience of the world. Oil is no longer as significant in the global power play as it was 20 years ago. Superiority is now measured in cutting edge advancements in green energy generation and harvesting, where China leads. However, to look at the issue more specifically, Venezuela’s oil is notorious for being heavy and sour crude. It therefore requires specialised refining equipment and technical expertise to extract and refine. This renders the operations capital-intensive and operationally complex. Therefore, whereas Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, it may not be commercially viable to exploit them due to challenges of profitability emanating from the issues above. Whether Trump’s advisers took this into perspective before encouraging him to go on with this operation is left to speculation.
Into the bargain, there is so much political uncertainty for American oil companies to consider before spending their capital in Venezuela. It is not certain whether the transition government will hold. Whoever invests there, therefore, is making a huge gamble both on the commercial and political viability of Venezuelan oil and stability, respectively.
I would like to conclude with a reflection on the legality of Trump’s abduction and trial of a head of state. These actions breach international law, extraterritorial jurisdiction and due process. Trump violated the principles of the UN Charter on non-intervention in affairs of another sovereign country, and obviously, the abuse of Venezuela’s territorial integrity. Western countries shouted themselves hoarse over the “aggression” of Russia in Ukraine. They called for Putin to be arraigned before the ICC. Now they have an opportunity for the most apparent form of aggression, where a head of state was abducted from sovereign territory. We await their sanctions against America, in vain. Principles of customary international law, which provide for immunity of a head of state as a core issue, seem not to apply to the U.S. America has unanimously abused international law in Venezuela. It is an international low of historic proportions. International law is anarchical. Anarchy has been experienced in Venezuela. Anarchy is at our doorsteps.
The writer is a Senior research fellow, Development Watch Centre.
Analysing Putin’s Stance on U.S. Sanctions and Escalation
Dear Editor, last month on October 22, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he had cancelled his planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which was scheduled to take place in the next two weeks in Budapest, Hungary. He told reporters at the White House that “It just didn’t feel right to me,” and that he did not want a “wasted meeting.” Almost simultaneously, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned Russia’s two largest oil companies, Open Joint Stock Company Rosneft Oil Company (Rosneft) and Lukoil OAO (Lukoil). Soon afterwards, the European Union also imposed another round of anti-Russian sanctions on items such as toilets, motorised toys, puzzles, and tricycles.
When a journalist asked Putin to comment on the fact that the EU had cancelled the purchase of Russian toilets, he jokingly retorted that that would cost them dearly. He advised that they would generally “actually need them in today’s situation if they continue to pursue the same policy toward the Russian Federation.” While this sounds both like a joke but also a stern warning to Europe, I think EU leaders had better heed his word. Better to err on the side of caution.
We should remember that Putin and Trump held talks on August 15, 2025, at the Joint Base Elmendorf–Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, to discuss the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War. Although the summit ended without an agreement being announced, Trump later called on Ukraine to take responsibility for the next steps of ending the war by ceding territory. Both the Alaska meeting itself and the place where it was to be held were proposed by the American side. Moreover, in an undiplomatic act of intimidation against Putin, as the two leaders walked to the platform where the meeting was to commence, the United States Air Force fighters and a B-2 bomber flew overhead. However, Putin gentlemanly never made a fuss of it.
Speaking about Trump’s decision to cancel or postpone the Hungary meeting, Putin rightly said that dialogue is always better than any confrontation or, all the more so, than war. Russia has never shied away from holding any dialogues. The ball has often been in America’s court to determine when and where.
As for the sanctions that have been further imposed against Russia, this is the same old game, nothing new. Just like it was in the past, whereas the sanctions will certainly affect Russia in some way, they have proved to be incapable of significantly denting its economy. In his first term, Trump introduced the largest number of sanctions that had ever been imposed against the Russian Federation up to that time. The sanctions have both a political and an economic aspect. Politically, the West uses sanctions to try to pressure Russia to negotiate out of weakness. However, Putin’s stance is gritty. He asserts that “No self-respecting country and no self-respecting people ever make any decisions under pressure.” Undoubtedly, if anyone has read European history, they would know that Russia towers through history as one of the most self-respecting countries and peoples.
It is also misguided for America to continue economic sanctions toward Russia, as it weakens the Russian-American relations, which have only just begun to recover.
The sanctions are also likely to puncture America’s economy itself, so they are shooting themselves in the foot. Today, the United States produces about 13.5 million barrels per day, ranking first. In second place is Saudi Arabia, producing around 10 million, and the Russian Federation is in third, with about 9.5 million barrels per day. However, the United States consumes 20 million. They sell some of their oil and then buy even more, mainly from Canada. So, producing 13.5 and consuming 20 million barrels is not a very good position to be in, and worse, sanctioning one of your key trade partners. On the other hand, Russia and Saudi Arabia sell more oil and petroleum products. Saudi Arabia sells about 9 million tons of oil and petroleum products to foreign markets, while the Russian Federation sells 7.5 million tons. That means Russia’s contribution to the global energy balance is very significant.
Therefore, Trump’s move to break the balance that Russia brings to the global energy market is a very reckless task, which will most certainly affect American interests too. To replace the contribution of Russian oil and petroleum products on the world market is harder than Trump may comprehend, since it takes time and requires large investments.
The consequences of the sanctions are now bare, and can be seen in how the International Energy Agency is even proposing and encouraging participants in economic activity to invest in hydrocarbon energy, contrary to the contemporary acclamations for going green. Additionally, Trump seems not to understand or outrightly ignore the fact that the world economy is growing, and energy consumption is increasing. So, it is not possible to sharply increase production at once, at whim.
Economic principles also make it obvious that if the amount of oil and petroleum products on the world market sharply decreases, prices will rise. Putin minced no words in cautioning Trump about the sensitivity of such a downward spiral of things and the political consequences it would have on the United States electoral calendar.
It is commonplace to conclude now that it is in the interest of Trump and everybody to break the escalation of this conflict; otherwise, in the end, we shall all lose.
The writer is a senior research fellow, Development Watch Center.
For Whoever Controls Rare Minerals, Shall Inherit the Earth: US-China Trade War Chapter 2 Verse 1
For centuries, humankind has fought wars over oil, land and faith. The wars of today and perhaps the future will be about who controls the jewels of the earth, those rare earth minerals that power our age. They are in our chips, batteries, satellites, and missiles. For many countries, these elements power the very systems that guarantee their dominance. At the center of this struggle, stands the world’s largest economies, the United States and China. How this contest unfolds will depend not on bullying, threats and blackmail but on diplomacy, tact and compromise.
The second chapter of the U.S-China trade war kicked off with a bang. China fired a warning shot that has quite literally left the ground shaking. According to Aljazeera, China announced export controls on five more rare-earth metals- Holmium, erbium, thulium, europium and ytterbium adding to earlier restrictions on samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium. Alongside these, China also restricted the export of specialist technological equipment used to refine rare earth metals. Foreign entities will now have to obtain special government approvals if they wish to export any material that contain at least 0.1 percent heavy rare earth metals from China.
As expected, the move left Washington fuming. Donald Trump took to the socials to vent his frustration, threatening 100% tariffs on Chinese exports and new export controls on critical software. The self-styled ‘king of tariffs’ went even further by questioning the importance of his highly anticipated meeting with President Xi during the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit (APEC) in South Korea later this month. Global markets and policy makers are again on tenterhooks, bracing for another phase of the largely damaging trade war between the world’s largest economies.
In this fog of trade-war, it is important to separate facts from fiction. Despite the supposed truce between both countries, the United States has continued to blacklist Chinese firms and impose port fees on china-linked ships. The Trump administration has not shied away from referring to China as an enemy and demonizing it at every turn. Washington’s long-term objective is clear: to contain China and isolate it for the mere ‘crime’ of being too good a competitor. The U.S. cites its ‘national interests’ as justification for its actions against Beijing, half a world away. However, the question practically asks itself, if Washington can behave this way in the name of national security, what stops China from doing the same?
The export controls on rare earth minerals are an assertion of sovereignty and safeguarding national interests. Rare earth metals are not run-of-the mill goods of trade. They are the hidden backbone of advanced weaponry. These elements are critical in the production of fighter jets, Submarines, radar systems, missiles, drones, smart bombs and AI driven military systems. If anything, China has a stronger moral case: Its restrictions include exemptions for humanitarian and emergency uses such as medical and disaster relief.
The world must root for the Trump-Xi summit in South Korea to take place. The two most powerful leaders in the world need to sit down and talk. Dialogue, not ultimatums will resolve this contest. The United States should approach the table with some humility and respect for China’s national interests, something Beijing has consistently emphasized. For constructive international relations, respect for sovereignty, and the legitimate security concerns of other nations is an essential prerequisite. Trump’s approach of strong-arming countries into ‘deals’ will not work with China. Compromise grounded in mutual benefit is the only path forward. The President of the United States must have learned from his attempts to force India away from Russian oil that it simply does not work that way anymore. Instead, India has grown closer to China, a development that strengthens global stability but complicates Washington’s foreign policy objectives in the Indo-pacific.
China will approach this summit from a position of strength. It controls 90% of the world’s rare earth elements, dominates lithium-ion battery supply chains, and controls a vast network of mineral processing facilities that the West lacks both the capacity and the political will to replicate in the short term. Most importantly, Beijing has shown a willingness to engage in dialogue and compromise. The United States must come to terms with the fact that China is now a pace setter, a capable competitor unafraid to defend its national interests.
Perhaps the most significant outcome for the Global South and the rest of the world would be Washington’s recognition that Beijing has the potential to become an indispensable partner. This would open opportunities, to borrow from Trump’s signature turn of phrase “the likes of which the world has never seen before.” Now is a time for diplomacy and not war, for dialogue and not threats.
The Writer is a Senior Research Fellow at DWC.
ISRAEL-HAMAS DEAL: SHORT TERM FIXES TO EVADE PERMANENT SOLUTION
The deal. One that has been of global interest, but not the deal the world has for decades sought – a permanent solution. War is cruel. The ultimate price has until 11th October, 2025, been paid. Death has been the final price paid for the decades Israel and Palestine have had a stand off. And what was thought would be a ‘mere’ weeks’ conflict, has dragged on for over 2 years. It is still thought by some observers that the war could be revived shortly after the call-off by the two adversaries. The number of children reported dead during the conflict have roughly been estimated beyond 20,000 children. More than 28,000 girls and women have been reported killed in the conflict coming to the ceasefire, while the numbers of men have by many observers ceased to count, and are only aggregated on percentage of the total deaths recorded – at approximately 40% of total deaths reported. The numbers matter. Yes they do because every life matters, and as such, it should be regrettable that the war ever happened. The ultimate price that is (has been) paid.
But in every war comes a victor. Not always, but mostly as history observes. And sometimes the victor is not the actual bearer of the primary loss. President Trump has a feast of the year 2025 to assert the heroics. “I delivered as promised.” He has been vocal since taking office for his Second Term as President of the United States of America about the subject of ‘war’. The Israel-Palestine conflict got high value in the White House ahead of the Russia-Ukraine war because of the obvious interests Washington under President Trump’s reign holds. It should not come as a surprise because it was not different from his first term. Israel has always been the infallible darling of the U.S. And while the world in recent months took steps of account towards the excesses of war such as South Africa’s claim against Israel in the International Court of Justice, the UN Human Rights Council sessions on the Gaza Question, and open calls by various States globally for an end of the assault occupation, much of it have received disregard from a U.S’s mouthpiece perspective.
The cease fire deal, now in effect, had at its centre, release of hostages that have been held by both sides. Thus the deal saw partial withdrawal of Israel’s forces from major areas such as the Rafa Border Crossing which will ease access to medical treatment on the Egyptian side for some casualties, and the access to humanitarian aid within the wrecked region. A sigh of relief perhaps, but for how long. The two-State solution as proposed decades ago has been maintained for some critics as the only longlasting solution. Indeed, a number of countries have in 2025, especially in Europe, declared total recognition of the Independent State of Palestine. On all occasions, even before the U.N, the U.S has either shown regret or exercised its veto right. One Country in the extreme parallel. Interests. So who are the winners?
Certainly after the first phase of the deal, the lingering question is “What does the future of Gaza look like? And who decides the future?” By now the short answers must already be clear. Coming this far, the shaping events have turned the eyes to the White House. It all got sealed by the bidding of Gaza to real estate conversations – a future likened to ‘paradise’. That will definitely not be received without resistance. The wider international community remains optimistic. In fact, even within Israel, protests have been reported of some sections of the country’s citizens that believe the war’s agenda was never as sold to them earlier. They call for a total end to the war. The winners? That is only a question that can be answered in time. The next phase of negotiations complicates the conversation more.
The solution of the Israel-Palestine question should not be a reserve of the very country that vetoed severally in the past efforts to straighten the situation by the wider international community. The solution is ultimately one that should lie to the member States of the U.N as a collective. Equal decision making. Equal bearing in the rebuilding. The U.S keeps steering away from engaging other States and as such, plays a part in the extension of the conflict. The whole idea has been to avoid the resurrection of the two-State solution. Back door negotiations for example are neither going to answer the proposed terms of disarming Hamas, nor provide the leadership that is the imagination of the U.S in Gaza. Of course the desire of Israel is to fully alienate Gaza without question. But that will not come without resistence. It remains an unavoidable trip back to the U.N resolutions over time that have suggested interesting, but reasonable solutions. Without doing so, the U.S and Israel will only see themselves in an illusion as winners for a short time, but in reality, losers too for a long time.
The writer is a Senior Research Fellow, Development Watch Centre.
Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Trump-Putin Alaska Summit; Moscow’s Concerns are Legitimate
The latest meeting between President Donald Trump of the United States of America and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, in what is now known as the Alaska summit, was costly because of the security logistical setup and the backstage diplomatic efforts that saw the event through, but didn’t yield much. The 2025 Alaska summit could be the start of a series of efforts that finally bring a freeze to the situation in Ukraine.
To understand why in the first place Russia initiated its special military operation in Ukraine we have to go back in time, we can even go back a thousand years, but today we shall dwell much on the last three decades, after the break up of the USSR in 1991. The USSR was a formation of a multiple ethnic states, that were called Republics, and Ukraine was one of them. It’s end is considered to be a geopolitical tragedy, and that is the view of the current Russian President.
Russia didn’t wake up and just decide to invade Ukraine in 2022, with no reason. For Moscow the move was very much about offensive realism which is basically the amassing of power and regional dominance because of the prevailing uncertainty and threats of an anarchic international system where survival of a given country is the most important thing. Russia is compelled to seek regional hegemony to ensure it’s safety, according to John Mearsheimer this is supposed to be a constant endvour of strategic miscalculations that will bring about conflict and war at certain points especially when great powers are involved. In this case it’s Russia on one side and the USA and it’s allies on the other.
Since the end of the Cold War three decades ago, Moscow views NATO’s eastward expansion as a real threat to its security, in the last decade and half, the political power centers in Kiev along with Washington and Brussels have been flirting about Ukraine joining the security organization which was a clear Red line for Russia, and they were not going to stand by as their core security interests were being teased. The provocation was an encroachment to Russia’s sphere of influence. It was uncalled for because after the end of the Cold war there is a promise in place that NATO never expands “one inch eastward.”
Russia is in Ukraine to protect the Russian speaking population, its no secret that there are neo-Nazi activities, during the conflict military units have come out with Nazi insignia and flags fighting on the side of Kiev. Russia accuses these groups of persecuting the Russian speaking population in the Donbas regions. The international community which is made up of the West took clear sides when it came to internal divisions within Ukraine, Washington supported Ukrainian speaking people and sidelined the other side an act that exacerbated the situation prompting Russia to come in and take its side.
According to Professor Jeffery Sachs Washington’s disdain for historical and cultural claims of the European plain made it clear that only a military act would make Russia’s point. For example Russia’s ties to Crimea which had been a Russian territory since 1783 and only transferred to the Ukraine Republic under the USSR as a symbolic move aimed at nation building in 1954. These historical nuances that were stubbornly ignored only fired up Russia for war.
For Russia, going to Ukraine is an act of resistance against Western unilateralism and Washington’s blunt imperialism. It’s one of the reasons even those that have taken a neutral position have a soft spot for Moscow. The West has consistently violated international norms from the far East in the case of China and Taiwan, to the Middle East when it comes to Iran, Iraq among others states. Washington thrives in overthrowing governments and while expanding military alliances at the same point ignoring regional powers like Russia, of course any country would react in a self interest manner.
The situation in Ukraine goes back years, it goes beyond 2014, when Russia decided to take back the home of its Black Sea fleet in Crimea, it’s strategic base for its naval power and the adjacent water ways that connects it to global trade. It goes beyond the 3 years of the full scale military operation, even the fall of the Soviet Union was just a flash point of previous centuries. It’s geopolitical and geoeconomic and that’s why it has led to several global shock waves that are being felt even as far here in Uganda. From February of 2022 the world has experienced shifts in alliances, here in Africa there is pressure to align with the West at a time when neutrality is very vital for peace.
Since Ukraine was a major global food basket, the war meant they had to halt agriculture and this has affected the world food security bring about shortages and price hikes, Western sanctions on Russia have had a ripple effect on the world energy markets taking that has resulted into higher fuel prices across the planet. Like any conflict there is a humanitarian and migration issue in Europe and because it’s affecting people with white skin, they have taken priority over others in conflict across the world.
Before this escalation Europe had not faced war at this scale since 1945, a disaster that had engulfed the whole world, that bit had ended and just like then, even this episode can end. If the West was pragmatic they could have avoided this all together. Professor Yanis Varoufakis has always suggested a Good Friday Agreement like mode for the Donbas with shared sovereignty and guarantees for both Russian and Ukraine speakers, he also in the past advocated for a neutral Ukraine under a UN backed treaty that may see peace keepers from countries like the UK and China maintain the agreed Red Lines.
Before 2014 if only the West was wise to halt the NATO expansion which is about buying American weapons, Respecting the Minsk Agreement that promoted the autonomy of the Danbas, if only the Washington through the CIA had avoided overthrowing Yanukovych which was a hostile move towards Russia. If only the West has seriously respected the diplomatic path to address Moscow’s legitimate grievances, the world would have never seen this disaster happening. In the event President Trump in his quest for a Nobel Peace prize managed to get a deal with his Russian counterpart it will be only on the grounds of Russia’s original Reasons for the escalation.
The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre
No Reason to Take Trump’s Claims About China’s Purported Violation of the Geneva Talks
On 2nd June, China publicly responded for the first time to President Trump’s comments that Beijing was acting contrary to the agreement entered by the two countries in Geneva earlier last month. Beijing’s position was explained by the spokesperson of the country’s Ministry of Commerce (MoC), He Yongqian. Being that the pronouncements by the two parties are contradictory, it can be confusing to establish who has in fact conducted themselves improperly something that the rest of this OP-ED deals with.
To begin with, the language adopted by either administration tells a lot. On one hand, you have the MoC statement which is substantive in its claims and on the other, you have nothing but generic accusations. Specifically, Beijing pointed out that the US had despite the understanding between Secretary Scott Bessent and Vice Premier He Lifeng gone on to restrict the export of artificial intelligence chips and trade in chips with the Republic of China as well as revoking Chinese students visas among other measures. In the case of America however, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer could only afford to say that “United States did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the Chinese are slow rolling their compliance.”
One would have liked to say that Washington is treading carefully in the spirit of diplomacy except for the fact that the same leadership has not been known to act as such in recent months. They did not do so with Ukraine or South Africa so it would be a breakaway from a well-established pattern if they were to act differently in this case all over a sudden. Moreover, away from the fact that there has been no particular clarification on the facts, the rhetoric itself has been combative. In a “truth” that kicked off this whole controversy on Truth Social thus, Mr. Trump directly insinuated that it was to be expected that China would act dishonestly. His very words were; “China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!” If he had a bomb to drop, there is no doubt that he would have proceeded to do so without any hesitation.
But it is also not that the White House is causing upheaval for no reason, it is just that its rationales are petty and selfish to say the least. We know for instance, that the presiding Commander in Chief has been known to apportion blame to an other whenever things do not go his way with China famously occupying this position for most of the time. This time round, Congress has just passed a rather unpopular law which strips essential benefits from a good number of people that voted Republican in the previous elections and so he badly needed a distraction.
Another absurd but very real scenario is that Donald Trump has long portrayed himself as a deal-maker. Unfortunately for him, President Xi’s philosophy contradicts this stance since the Asian politician believes in systems. The result of this as Bert Hofman of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore put it, has been that the Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has kept a healthy distance from the trade war and instead encouraged in-line officials to spearhead the negotiation process to the frustration of his American counterpart.
By artificially manufacturing friction hence, the US hopes to catch Xi Jinping’s ear. No wonder, following these developments, USA bureaucrats have been pushing for a call with the CCP head. The irony of course, is that there was one such conversation on 17th January this year the theme of which laid the foundations for the Geneva talks i.e. the very talks that the United States of America is already going back on. Why pretend to care about the future whilst presently acting in bad faith then?
Honestly, this conduct is reflective of the usual bullying from the west that we are now accustomed to. The United States forgets though that the stakes are not in its favour on this one– and, Stephen Olson, a visiting fellow at the Yusof Ishak Institute agrees. By the time it awakens, things might be too little, too late.
The writer is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre.
Trump’s Trade Tariffs: A Gun That Turns On It’s Master
Image a tariff as a gun: and a man in the U.S. stands tall, calm and composed, with this polished gun in hand. He points it at his rivals, to intimidate, to demand respect, and to bend the room to his will. The barrel sunbeams under the light everyone watches. For a moment power seems to be his.
But then there is a truth about this gun, it is unpredictable. It jams, it misfires and sometimes in the tension of a standoff, it explodes backwards, tearing through the one who dared to wield it.
The U.S. government has recently drawn tariffs like weapons in a duel intended to shield domestic industries and frighten foreign competitors. But it forgets the recoil. Higher consumer prices, retaliatory trade wars, crippled exports, and suppressed supply chains these are the wreckages that fly back and dwell deep into the economy that pulls the trigger of a tariffs.
A tariff can look like strength. It can feel like control but history has shown us time and again that it is a dangerous tool, best admired from a distance because in the wrong hands, or even in the right ones but on the wrong day, it does not just miss the target. It turns and shots the shooter.
In 1930, amidst the Great Depression, the U.S. passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, slapping tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to protect American jobs. Instead, it triggered a global trade war where countries retaliated, international trade collapsed by over 60% and American exports dried up. Far from a rescue plan, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs deepened the catastrophe it was meant to solve.
The U.S. has once more turned to a protectionism and still in the form of tariffs this time aimed at China again it is discovering that economic aggression invites economic retaliation.
The fact is that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods do not hurt China as much as they hurt American shoppers. Several studies including from the Federal Reserve and Independent Economist in the past showed that more than 90% of tariffs costs were passed to U.S. consumers, driving up prices on essentials like electronics, machines, furniture and clothing.
China has responded to U.S. tariffs with its own hitting American agriculture, cars, and manufacturing. Because of this, exports from U.S. farmers and factory towns are going to take a serious hit and some industries are going to face double-digit losses in revenue.
Like most tariffs are, the U.S. tariffs on China are equally a short-term protection for vulnerable industries and shall stifle innovation by removing competitive pressure, instead of modernizing, industries in the U.S. are going to become dependent on political shielding.
Why China stands to win; unlike the U.S. China approaches trade wars with strategic discipline and long-term planning. As the biggest rival to the U.S in global trade, it had long anticipated the imposition of tariffs and other protectionist measures. In response, it began diversifying its trade routes and market dependances.
This strategic partnership included strengthening it’s economic ties in Africa and across parts of Asia regions that offer abundant resources and growing consumer bases and present a viable alternatives to the American market.
Through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Beijin systematically built infrastructure, signed bilateral trade agreements, and invested in significant sectors in Africa and Asia that facilitate smoother trade flows, and as such mitigating the impact of western trade barriers.
This foresight in diversifying its trade portfolio came out of the fact that China had long observed the growing protectionist sentiment in the West. The 2018 U.S. tariffs which targeted over $250 billion worth of Chinese goods, confirmed its anticipation and it began preparing for a shift in global trade dynamics away from American dominance.
For instance, in Ethiopia the Addis-Ababa-Djibouti Railway funded by China links this African nation to the port of Djibouti. This therefore created a corridor that has become a vital artery for Ethiopian exports and Chinese imports.
The Lagos-Ibadan railway, funded by a 41.5 billion loan from Export-Import Bank is also part of it’s effort to secure reliable trade infrastructure and in exchange Nigeria remains a key supplier of crude oil to China.
In 2020, it signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the world’s largest trade pact with 14 Asia-Pacific countries that included Japan, South Korea and ASEAN nations RCEP covers about a third of the world’s population and GDP.
Under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has received over $60 billion to build roads, railways, and to develop Gwadar Port. This initiative provides China with direct access to the Arabian sea while bypassing the Strait of Malacca, a strategic chokepoint often times controlled by the U.S.
Uganda has also significantly benefited from the Belt and Road Initiative since it joined the initiative. specially through major infrastructure and energy projects such as the Karuma and Isimba dams, the Entebbe–Kampala Expressway, the Osukuru Industrial Complex, the Kingfisher Oil Field and the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).These projects have also made Uganda an artery for Uganda exports such as coffee and Chinese imports.
Countries in Africa and Asia that have partnered with China through BRI are likely to weather Trump’s tariffs better than others because their primary trade and infrastructure dependencies are now with China rather than the U.S. By restricting global trade and imposing unilateral tariffs, the U.S is pushing nations further into China’ embrace yet many of these nations were allies or part of the western development networks.
The irony is that Trump’s tariffs meant to punish China may end up punishing the future of America. Countries that once looked to the United States as a beacon of opportunity now see it as unreliable, unpredictable, and disinterested.
History will remember this moment not as China downfall, but as the turning point that confirmed a timeless truth: what does not kill you makes you stronger.
The author is a research fellow at the Sino-Uganda Research Centre.