Just International

Is a Nuclear War Coming to Europe?

By Haider Abbas

The much-hyped recent meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump has, by now, seemingly ended in a damp squib. The Russia–Ukraine war (ongoing since 2023) continues unabated, with renewed acceleration. Russia reportedly launched more than 800 drones into Ukraine on September 7, shortly after Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping met at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China (September 1). North Korean President Kim Jong Un—an anathema to Europe and the US—was also closely aligned.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi was present too, in what seemed like a somersault in response to US tariffs and penalties over India’s purchase of Russian oil at heavily subsidized rates, effectively making India a “laundromat” for the Russian economy, as described by US trade advisor Peter Navarro. India did not attend the victory parade in China, whereas Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir did. India and Pakistan had previously been locked in conflict until a ceasefire was brokered by Donald Trump—a fact Modi continues to deny. A growing rift is evident between Modi and Trump. Modi reportedly ignored four phone calls from Trump, after which Trump canceled the QUAD meeting in India. In turn, Modi canceled his UNGA visit, where a rendezvous with Trump had been possible. Modi has also remained silent on Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize—a move supported by Pakistan.

Currently, three wars appear closely aligned: India vs. Pakistan, Israel vs. Iran, and China over Taiwan, all taking place amid the raging Russia–Ukraine war. Since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, Israel has continued its genocidal war on Palestine, with around 65,000 people killed so far. The US has stood firmly with Israel, while the US, NATO, and European nations continue to support Ukraine militarily. Russia, on the other hand, is strongly backed by Iran and China. India has momentarily distanced itself from the US but cannot afford to break ties entirely, as Washington and Tel Aviv are deeply intertwined. Meanwhile, Turkey and the 22 Arab states have long abandoned Palestine, aligning instead with the US (and by extension, Israel).

These current and looming conflicts must be understood against the backdrop of earlier flashpoints. The 44-day war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2020 saw Turkey and Israel backing Azerbaijan, while Iran and Russia supported Armenia. The war ended only after Russia brokered a ceasefire. Soon after, in May 2021, a 12-day war between Israel and Hamas broke out, which ended in a truce after Putin warned Israel’s ambassador to Moscow, Alexander Ben Zvi, to stop hostilities. Iran supported Hamas, and Russia played a key role in halting the conflict. The common thread: Russia and Iran. This alignment pushed global powers to entangle Russia, setting the stage for the February 2022 Russia–Ukraine war, triggered by Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership—which would have brought NATO to Russia’s doorstep. Azerbaijan remains hostile toward Iran and is almost certain to side with Israel, along with Arab states and Turkey, if an Israel–Iran war breaks out—a scenario that now appears imminent.

The SCO meeting has strengthened Russia–China ties. Both had already agreed during the Beijing Winter Olympics (2023) to support each other’s wars. Over the past two years, the US and NATO have pumped billions of dollars in military aid into Ukraine, though Trump has attempted to place some brakes on this. The US now wants NATO to fund long-range missiles for Ukraine. If President Volodymyr Zelenskyy deploys these against Russia, it could trigger a direct escalation—potentially leading to nuclear war. These ominous signs are increasingly visible on the world stage.

Following the first phase of the Israel–Iran conflict, the US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. In response, Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev expressed willingness to supply nuclear warheads to Iran. China, too, has reportedly extended its security umbrella over Iran. Meanwhile, European powers England and France have moved to strengthen their nuclear deterrence by agreeing to coordinate operational aspects of their nuclear arsenals. This step reflects widespread speculation that Russia may retaliate with nuclear strikes if Ukraine deploys long-range missiles.

In its latest offensive, Russia targeted the Ukrainian government headquarters—a major escalation signaling the failure of US and European defense systems. Precision strikes on Ukrainian leadership may follow. Putin is well aware that targeting Zelenskyy could provoke NATO’s direct intervention. Conversely, Zelenskyy may not hesitate to escalate if the opportunity arises.

England has already begun preparing for a possible war with Russia, conducting emergency tests of alert messages across tens of millions of phones. As part of public sensitization, citizens have been advised to stock essential medicines and prepare “go bags” containing torches, phone chargers, warm clothing, blankets, high-visibility gear, jump leads, food, water, snow shovels, and first-aid kits. France has issued similar preparations, instructing hospitals to prepare for treating thousands of soldiers within 10 to 180 days. Medical centers are also being set up at transport hubs to facilitate the rerouting of foreign soldiers back to their home countries.

Another major concern for Europe comes from satellite imagery reportedly showing a fresh Russian military buildup near the borders of the Baltic states and Finland, according to Polskie Radio. The data indicates thousands of Russian troops, aircraft, and naval units stationed roughly 250 km east of Helsinki. If Russia attacks the strategic Suwałki Gap—akin to the “Chicken Neck” corridor on India’s northeast border—it could seize control of the only land route linking Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to the rest of Europe. This is NATO’s most vulnerable land corridor. In response, NATO has drawn up a new defense strategy, including a rapid-reaction force of 300,000 troops ready to deploy within 30 days.

Never since World War II have Europe and the US found themselves in such a precarious situation. The question now looms large: Will this spiral into a Third World War?

The writer is a former UP State Information Commissioner and writes on international issues.

References:

1-https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01160/

2-https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7784/artykul/3494829,russia-reportedly-eyes-suwalki-gap-satellite-images-show-military-buildup

9 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Elephant & Dragon Choose Dialogue: Why the SCO Reset Matters for India, China, and the Global South

By Atul Chandra

At the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin on 1 September 2025, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping met and publicly framed the relationship as “partners, not rivals.” Their readouts stressed dialogue on differences and cooperation on development—language that marks the clearest thaw since the 2020 Ladakh crisis.

Two moves gave the reset substance, not just optics. First, India and China re-activated the Special Representatives (SR) dialogue on the boundary question in New Delhi on 19 August 2025, and second, they agreed to restart direct flights and expand people-to-people and business links, after a five-year freeze. These are communications channels that reduce miscalculation and restore some weight to a battered relationship.

This reset unfolded as Xi used the Tianjin summit to push a more assertive Global South agenda—including accelerating an SCO Development Bank—explicitly challenging single-power dominance and sanction-driven globalization. For India, which has long sought strategic autonomy, a functional India–China channel inside the SCO is not a capitulation; it is leverage.

After the 2020 Galwan clash, New Delhi tightened tech and investment restrictions on China, while both sides forward-deployed troops and cut normal political contact. Through late 2024, however, working-level mechanisms (WMCC) and diplomatic engagements recovered modest momentum, including an October 2024 patrolling/disengagement understanding that lowered the temperature in parts of eastern Ladakh. Those steps—and Doval–Wang talks since—made a top-level political meeting viable in 2025.

No one should romanticize the moment: structural problems remain—an $99.2 billion trade imbalance, different readings of the LAC, concerns over water projects in Tibet, and third-country entanglements. But the policy choice before India and China is no longer escalation by default. In Tianjin, both sides re-committed to managing the border without letting it define the whole relationship, and to grow economic ties more deliberately (including flights, visas, and religious travel). That is an ideological and practical pivot from the 2020-2022 freeze.

SCO As a Platform for Global South Coordination

The SCO is no longer a narrow security club. By Beijing’s own data, China–SCO trade reached $512.4 billion in 2024, and the grouping now represents nearly half of humanity and roughly a quarter of global GDP—a scale impossible to ignore. A proposed SCO Development Bank would add an instrument for infrastructure connectivity that is not indexed to IMF/ADB conditionalities and could complement the BRICS New Development Bank—precisely the kind of multipolar finance the Global South has argued for.

For India, this matters beyond symbolism. South Asia’s intra-regional trade is chronically low; regional capital for rail, energy, and border trade infrastructure in the eastern subcontinent (India–Nepal–Bangladesh) and Himalayan corridors can raise productivity for Indian manufacturers and farmers alike. The SCO platform makes it easier for New Delhi and Beijing to co-fund “small and beautiful” cross-border projects that de-risk supply chains without securitizing every kilometre of road.

Context matters. Washington’s new 50 percent tariff rates on most Indian imports—a punitive response to India’s discounted Russian oil purchases—arrived days before Tianjin. That move, accompanied by contradictory rhetoric (from threats to boasts that India might cut tariffs to zero), underlines a familiar imperial privilege: partners are expected to align with U.S. strategic preferences while absorbing trade shocks that undermine their own policy autonomy.

From New Delhi’s vantage point, this is not how collaboration looks; it resembles coercive policy conditionality. India and the U.S. will keep negotiating—Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has said as much—but the tariff episode reinforces a structural lesson: hedging is rational, and over-reliance on any single bloc—Western or otherwise—exposes India’s industrial policy to external vetoes. The SCO/BRICS lane gives India bargaining power it simply wouldn’t possess as a junior partner.

From a developmentalist perspective, India–China cooperation is not an ideological indulgence; it’s a growth strategy. Consider three concrete channels:

Industrial upgrading: India’s path to moving up value chains in electronics, EVs, and capital goods cannot be built on asset-light assembly alone. Selective, rules-of-origin-tight Chinese FDI/tech partnerships, when paired with local content and standards, can accelerate domestic supplier ecosystems—exactly the value-addition challenge India has struggled with under production linked Incentive (PLI). Pragmatic engagement, not blanket bans, delivered East Asia’s manufacturing rise. (This is a policy logic; the Tianjin mood makes it politically easier to execute.)

Trade facilitation and logistics: A serious reset—backed by SCO connectivity finance—can unclog border trading points, standardize phytosanitary rules, and reduce freight times on Bay of Bengal–Himalayan corridors. That pays dividends to Indian MSMEs as surely as it helps Chinese exporters.

Knowledge and people flows: Direct flights and eased visas revive university, think-tank, and business exchanges that feed innovation (AI, biotech, green tech). After years of demonization—and mutual ignorance—structured contact is the cheapest confidence-building measure available.

Managing differences, not denying them

The LAC remains sensitive. That is precisely why redundant communications channels—corps-commander talks, WMCC, and SR-level dialogue—must keep running on schedule, insulated from media theatrics. The October 2024 patrolling/disengagement understanding did not “solve” the boundary, but it showed sequenced technical fixes are possible when politicians keep lines open. The Tianjin meeting reaffirmed that border issues should not define the totality of the relationship.

On trade, Modi reportedly pressed to narrow the deficit and expand market access; Xi emphasized de-securitizing commerce and focusing on development. Neither side will get everything it wants, but both now acknowledge that managed interdependence is better than brittle decoupling that hurts growth and jobs.

The Tianjin SCO was bookended by China’s 80th-anniversary anti-fascist commemorations in Beijing on 3 September, with many world leaders attending. Whatever one thinks of Beijing’s historical narrative, the symbolism is clear: regional security should be regionalized, and Asia will not cede agenda-setting to trans-Atlantic alliances. Donald Trump did not attend this commemoration, despite earlier speculation, which underscores how Eurasian coordination increasingly proceeds on its own timetable.

For India, the peace dividend is internal: relief for the exchequer, oxygen for industrial policy, and room to address agrarian distress, urban employment, and climate adaptation at home. For China, it is external: a less securitized periphery that allows a focus on high-quality growth and technology goals. For South Asia, easing India–China rivalry reduces coercive hedging pressures on Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan, and opens space for trade-led poverty reduction. This is how Global South multilateralism becomes material—through cheaper credit, faster logistics, and predictable rules—rather than a slogan.

Indian and international media often swing between alarmist “China threat” frames and rosy “reset” headlines. A class-conscious reading avoids both. It recognizes how border nationalism can be used domestically to obscure distributional conflicts; it also recognizes how corporate media ownership can amplify Western talking points that press India toward security-heavy alignments inimical to industrial deepening. In this view, dialogue with Beijing is not about sentimentality; it is about bargaining power for workers and producers in the Indian economy.

Strategic autonomy in practice

Tianjin does not end competition. It disciplines it. India will—must—modernize and diversify supply chains, and press on market access. China will protect its core interests and its ties with its neighbouring countries. But between structured rivalry and unstructured hostility, only the former keeps peace, stability, and development within reach.

The U.S. tariff shock is a reminder that alignment is not insurance. The SCO/BRICS lane—with a potential SCO bank, revived border trade, and flight links—offers India and China a way to institutionalize predictability while each pursues national priorities. That is multilateralism with teeth, not performative non-alignment.

To paraphrase an old metaphor, it is better for the elephant to dance with the dragon—warily, on rules the elephant helps set—than to serve as a junior partner in someone else’s orchestra. The Tianjin summit and the Modi–Xi meeting reopened channels that can cool the border, restart the arteries of commerce, and anchor multipolar institutions that the Global South has demanded for decades. The task ahead is to turn those headlines into hard-edged policy: time-bound SR meetings, transparent aviation and visa timelines, a concrete SCO banking workplan, and a measurable road-map on trade and investment that raises Indian value-addition while normalizing ties.

Peace is not sentimental; it is planned. The elephant and the dragon have finally agreed to plan it together.

Atul Chandra is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

9 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Israeli attack on Hamas negotiators in Qatar exposes fraud of “ceasefire” talks

By Andre Damon

Israel carried out an airstrike on the Qatari capital of Doha Tuesday in an effort to kill the Hamas negotiators with whom it is nominally carrying out “ceasefire” talks. While the Hamas negotiators survived, the attack killed six people, including the son of Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas’s chief negotiator, as well as civilian bystanders.

All factions of the Israeli political establishment endorsed the attack. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasted about it, saying, “At the beginning of the war, I promised that Israel would reach those who perpetrated that horror. Today that was done.”

The attack on Qatar is the second major act of international perfidy carried out by Israel in recent months. In June, Israel and the United States used negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program as cover to assassinate large portions of Iran’s military and civilian leadership.

The attempt to murder Hamas negotiators exposes, once again, the complete fraud of US and Israeli claims that they are seeking a negotiated settlement of the genocide they refer to as a “war.” In reality, the negotiations are a fiction, invoked by the US media to cover up the fact that the “war” being waged by the US and Israel is merely a pretext to conquer the entirety of Gaza and kill or expel the Palestinian population.

On Sunday, Trump said he was giving Hamas a “final warning” to accept the US-Israeli terms of surrender. “I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting. This is my last warning, there will not be another one!” Trump said. The Hamas negotiators were holding a meeting to discuss the terms laid down by Trump.

The strikes targeted the Qatari capital of Doha and occurred near schools and embassies. Qatar is a key regional ally of the United States, and thousands of American soldiers are stationed at the country’s Al Udeid Air Base.

Doha has served as the location of “ceasefire” negotiations throughout the course of the genocide.

The Times of Israel, citing Israeli officials who spoke to Israeli broadcaster Channel 12, reported that “US President Donald Trump gave the green light for the Israeli strike in Qatar.”

Trump confirmed receiving advanced warning of the attack and said that the US had informed the Qatari government that “Israel was attacking Hamas” in the capital. Trump claimed, “This was a decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu,” adding, “It was not a decision made by me.”

While Trump said the strike “does not advance Israel or America’s goals,” he stopped short of condemning it outright, declaring, “eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.”

A week ago, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, the Israeli military’s chief of staff, said that Israel would seek to murder Hamas members throughout the Middle East. “We are operating across the entire Middle East,” he told reserve soldiers. “Hamas will have no place to hide from us. Wherever we locate them, whether they are senior or junior figures—we strike them all, all the time.”

In May, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz threatened Hamas’s chief negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya.

In a statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to distance the United States from the attack on Qatar, saying, “Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility.”

In a statement, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the strike as a “flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Qatar.”

“What happened today is state terrorism and an attempt to destabilize regional security and stability, and Netanyahu is leading the region to an irreversible level,” said Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in a televised address. He added, “These missiles were used to attack the negotiating delegation of the other party. By what moral standards is this acceptable?”

In a statement, Turkey said the attack on Qatar marked the “embrace of terrorism as a state policy,” amid media speculation that Israel could carry out attacks in other countries, including Turkey.

Just hours before the strike on Qatar, the Israel Defense Forces ordered the evacuation of the entirety of Gaza City as it accelerates its campaign to fully occupy the city. Approximately one million people remain in Gaza City, and Israel hopes to drive them to the south, where they will be interned in concentration camps near Rafah in preparation for their forcible expulsion from Palestine.

“I say to the residents of Gaza, take this opportunity and listen to me carefully: you have been warned—get out of there!” Netanyahu said Tuesday.

Last month, the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) hunger monitor officially pronounced a famine in Gaza. To date, hundreds of people have already died of starvation and malnutrition, and the number is only expected to climb higher.

Meanwhile, representatives of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which is seeking to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and deliver food, said its ships were struck by two separate drone attacks over the past 24 hours, although no injuries were reported. Among the participants in the flotilla is climate activist Greta Thunberg.

10 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Humanity to Insanity: Urgent Global Action Needed to Stop Genocide in Gaza

By Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja

Western Political Wickedness and Authoritarian Arab Leaders

Evil and insanity are not imaginary but real and happening across Gaza -Palestine and  must be stopped to protect innocent human lives. The Israeli attack on Doha, Qatar with American blessing exposes the mockery of Arab leadership friendly relationships with the US and Israel. Peace was never an agenda item for the Israeli leadership but conquest of the Arab world would bring a “Greater Israel” plan closer to reality. Sinisterism obsessed with unacknowledged motives propels allusion and distortion if the Arab-Muslim leaders knew the impulse of time and history to defend themselves. Shamefully Arab-Muslim leaders failed to protect their people and culture from Western instigated aggression. Comparative analysis often unfolds hidden truths about human nature and its wickedness. The 26 EU countries at Paris (9/6/25), meeting offered security guarantees to Ukraine prospective peace deal but none could ever publicly offer words of wisdom to entrenched helpless innocent people of Gaza, daily bombed, planned victims of genocide, starved and forcibly displaced millions by Israel. Are there any global leaders of human conscience to extend security and protection of life to the masses of Gaza? There is a vital issue of ethnicity and Arabs were and remain colonized by the Western world. Are there any international organizations to help avert the catastrophic bloodbath in progress across Gaza? Were the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian Laws just paper-based , dry inked narratives without any power to serve the cause of humanity? How come the Arab-Muslim leaders are nowhere to be seen on this planet to defend the cause of Faith and protect Palestinians from Israeli-American sponsored war of extermination?

The Earth (A LIVING ENTITY) being bombed is the earth given to mankind by God as a “TRUST.” DO YOU NOT SEE IT FLOATING IN SPACE JUST BY THE COMMAND OF GOD? WHEREVER THERE IS A TRUST, THERE MUST BE ACCOUNTABILITY. When evil-mongers and wrong-doers violate the sanctity of the Laws of God, they are held accountable – history tells without any prejudice. This author has walked through the ancient graveyards of so many nations used to claim being the “most powerful” on this earth – dead bones and silent forever and nothing else.  The succeeding generations CURSE them for their crimes against humanity.  THE GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS APPEAR BROKEN AND DYSFUNCTIONAL TO STOP THE INSANITY. The US-Israel have dropped equal to “THREE Hiroshima-Nagasaki” nuclear arsenals on the innocent people of Gaza- Palestine. If you don’t believe in the encompassing truth, just view the real “genocide pictures” presented by Editor Rosa on Transcend Media, September 8, 2025:

[https://www.transcend.org/tms/2025/09/genocide-in-pictures-worth-a-trillion-words-66/]

Mike Adams (“Dystopian Nightmare: Ten Unbelievable Things that Will Happen Soon if We Don’t Stop the March of Tyranny and the Enslavement of Humanity.” (Transcend Media), warns of dire consequences to mankind.(https://www.transcend.org/tms/2023/06/dystopian-nightmare-10-unbelievable-things-that-will-happen-soon-if-we-dont-stop-the-march-of-tyranny-and-the-enslavement-of Humanity now faces a critical choice: We either choose the path of total enslavement under an authoritarian, techno-fascist dictatorship, or we choose to instead embrace decentralized finance, free speech, rationality and the rule of law.

Are the Israeli -US Leaders above International Laws and Accountability?

The besieged 2.5 million people of Gaza by Israeli forces blocking food, fuel, water, medicine and bombed hospitals portray clear pictures of tormenting pains, horrors and massive devastation planned and carried out as the global community witnesses in deaf silence as if the masses of Gaza are not normal human beings. The world is not infinite but subject to time and destiny. God, The All Knowing and Merciful has defined the roles and responsibilities of its creations. Would the Western nations hold Israeli PM Netanyahu and President Trump accountable for their insanity against the people of Palestine? The women and children of Gaza cry loud asking for humanitarian help if there are any Arab, Muslim or Western leaders to rescue them from extreme deprivation, starvation and planned extermination. Their cries end-up in deaf silence as no Western, Arab or Muslim leaders respond to their pains and horrors inflicted daily by the Israeli forces. Remember! those challenging the Laws of God are chastised by the Laws of God without exception. Are they waiting to meet the same end as did Pharaoh at the Red Sea? The Egyptians, Qataris, the UAE’s and Saudis and others carry no strength or political value in global context and appear morally, intellectually and politically bankrupt as a scum floating on a torrent of naive puppets and discredited leaders. Please see more:https://realovi.wordpress.com/2025/03/14/howarab-muslim-leaders-betrayed-the-people-by-mahboob-a-khawaja-phd/

Western Leaders Ignore the Consequences of Wrong Thinking and Actions

The former European imperialists sucked out the oil resources from the Arab world and now intend on dismantling the Arab-Muslim world- narrates Dr. Jan Oberg, a peace researcher from Sweden, and former British Diplomat Ian Proud: The “West” Is Imploding Faster after This”TRANSCEND Media Service: 4/8/25: https://www.transcend.org/tms/2025/04/the-west-is-imploding-faster-after-this/ The signs are not just on the wall but written in the skies and the oceans too. The entire “western” narrative, its repressive dominance, and its hubris are about to collapse and take many of its established institutions down with it. And the kakistrocratic (aka imbecile) leadership doesn’t even realise it. If they did, they wouldn’t be driving Europe into that giant iceberg.

Watching dreadful apparatus of fire and brimstone, We, the People are horrified by the crimes against humanity and genocide happening across Palestine. PM Netanyahu and President Trump, both leaders lack the moral, intellectual and legal capacity to understand the consequences of their wrong thinking and actions against the people of Palestine. Leadership is an art and it could be improved and changed for the good of humanity. Do intelligent leaders listen to voices of reason and make a navigational change when facts of life warrant an urgent change in attitudes, policies and behavior? The Divine Revelations (the Quran: 40: 21) offer a stern warning to conscientious leaders and nations:

Do they not travel through the earth and see

What was the End of those before them. They were even superior to them in strength

And in the traces they have left on the earth. But God did call them to account for their sins

And none had they to defend them against God.

Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international affairs-global security, peace and conflict resolution and has spent several academic years across the Russian-Ukrainian and Central Asian regions knowing the people, diverse cultures of thinking and political governance and a keen interest in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including:Global Humanity and Remaking of Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution for the 21st Century and Beyond, Barnes and Noble Press, USA, 2025

10 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Nepal’s Gen-Z Uprising Is About Jobs, Dignity—and a Broken Development Model

By Atul Chandra and Pramesh Pokharel

Kathmandu is on edge not because of “apps,” but because a generation raised on the promise of democracy and mobility has collided with an economy and political order that keep shutting every door. The proximate trigger was regulatory: the government ordered 26 major social-media platforms to register locally and began blocking those deemed non-compliant, including Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, X and others. Crowds surged toward Parliament; police deployed tear gas, rubber bullets and, in several places, live fire. By late 9 September, at least 19 people were killed and well over 300 injured. Under pressure, the government lifted the social-media ban and Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli resigned.

The Spark Was the Ban. The Fuel Was Political Economy

It is tempting—especially from afar—to narrate this as a clash over digital freedoms. That would be analytically thin. For Gen-Z Nepalis, platforms are not just entertainment; they are job boards, news wires, organizing tools, and social lifelines. Shutting them off—after years of economic drift—felt like collective punishment. But the deeper story is structural: Nepal’s growth has been stabilized by remittances rather than transformed by domestic investment capable of producing dignified work. In FY 2024/25, the Department of Foreign Employment issued 839,266 labor permits—staggering out-migration for a country of ~30 million. Remittances hovered around 33 percent of GDP in 2024, among the highest ratios worldwide. These numbers speak to survival, not social progress; they are a referendum on a model that exports its youth to low-wage contracts while importing basics, and that depends on patronage rather than productivity.

That is why the ban detonated so quickly. With youth under- and unemployment already high at 20.82 percent as seen in 2024, ministerial churn the norm, and corruption scandals ambient, attempts to police the digital commons looked less like “order” and more like humiliation. The movement’s form—fast, horizontal, cross-class—echoed Bangladesh’s student-led mobilizations and Sri Lanka’s Aragalaya: school and college students in uniform, unemployed graduates, gig and informal workers, and a broader, disillusioned public converged around a shared verdict on misrule.

Facts on the Ground: Casualties, Curfews, and Climb-Down

The event’s sequence is unambiguous. An expansive registration order and blocking decision ignited protests; security forces responded with escalating force; by Monday night 19 were dead and hundreds injured; curfews and assembly bans spread; the Home Minister quit; an emergency cabinet huddle withdrew the ban; by Tuesday, Oli resigned.
Importantly, the grievance was never only digital. Protest signs and chants centered on corruption, elite impunity, and the absence of a credible development horizon. Amnesty International demanded an independent probe into possible unlawful use of lethal force—another reason the uprising hardened from a platform quarrel into a legitimacy crisis.

Migration as the Silent Plebiscite

If one metric explains the generational mood, it is Exits. The 839,266 labor permits issued in FY 2024/25 (up sharply from the previous year) translate into thousands leaving every day at the peak. These are not tourists; they are the very cohort now on the streets. Their remittances—~33 percent of GDP—keep households afloat and the import bill paid, but they also mask a lack of structural transformation in the domestic economy. In a system that cannot absorb its educated youth into stable, value-adding work, the public square—online and offline—becomes the one place where dignity can be asserted. Trying to close that square amid scarcity was bound to provoke an explosion.

A Self-Inflicted Wound for Nepal’s Left

Following Nepal’s four-year IMF Extended Credit Facility (ECF) program, the government faced pressure to boost domestic revenue. This led to a new Digital Services Tax and stricter VAT rules for foreign e-service providers, but when major platforms refused to register, the state escalated by blocking them. This move, which began as a tax enforcement effort, quickly became a tool of digital control, and it occurred as the public was already dealing with rising fuel costs and economic hardships driven by the program’s push for fiscal consolidation. The government’s platform ban became the final trigger for widespread protests against corruption, joblessness, and a lack of opportunities, highlighting that the unrest was less about a “color revolution” and more about material grievances fueled by austerity measures.

That the crackdown and its political denouement unfolded under a CPN (UML) prime minister makes this a strategic calamity for Nepal’s left. Years of factional splits, opportunistic coalitions, and policy drift had already eroded credibility among the young. When a left-branded government narrows civic space instead of widening material opportunity, it cedes the moral terrain to actors who thrive on anti-party cynicism—individual-cult politics and a resurgent monarchist right. The latter has mobilized visibly this year; with Oli’s resignation, it will seek to portray itself as the guarantor of “order,” even as its economic vision remains thin and regressive. This is the danger: the very forces most hostile to egalitarian transformation can capitalize on left misgovernance to expand their footprint.

From an anti-imperialist vantage—one that opposes Northern privilege yet insists on unsentimental analysis—the crisis is textbook dependency without development. Remittances smooth consumption but entrench external dependence; donor-driven governance tweaks rarely become employment-first industrial policy; and procurement-heavy public spending feeds rent circuits more than productive capacity. In such an order, the state is tempted to police visibility rather than transform conditions. That is why an attempt to regulate platforms by switching them off—rather than by ensuring due process and narrow tailoring—was read as an effort to manage dissent, not to solve problems.

What Opposition Signals Tell Us (and What They Don’t) 

Opposition statements recognized the larger canvas sooner than the government did. Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) expressed condolences, urged action on anti-corruption demands, and called for removing “sanctions on social networks.” The CPN (Unified Socialist) and CPN (Maoist Centre) statements condemned the repression, demanded an impartial investigation, and linked digital curbs to failures on jobs and governance. These reactions matter analytically because they show that even within mainstream politics there is acknowledgment that the crisis is about livelihoods and legitimacy, not merely law-and-order.

But these signals also reveal the predicament of the left: if its leading figures can only react to a youth uprising rather than prefigure the development horizon that would have prevented it, then the arena will be dominated by anti-establishment and royalist currents claiming to deliver order faster—even at the cost of democratic space.

The bottom line

These protests in Nepal began because a government tried to regulate by switching off the public square. They exploded because that square is where a precarious generation looks for work, community and voice in the absence of opportunity at home. A complete accounting must therefore record both the human toll—19 dead and hundreds injured—and the structural toll: hundreds of thousands compelled to leave each year and remittances that prop up consumption while postponing transformation. With Oli’s resignation and the ban withdrawn, the immediate confrontation may ebb, but the verdict delivered by Gen-Z will not. Until Nepal replaces remittance complacency and coalition arithmetic with an employment-first development model, the streets will remain the most credible arena of accountability.

Atul Chandra is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research.

Pramesh Pokharel is a political analyst and part time lecturer of Anthropology at Tribhuvan University. 

10 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

A Battle for the Bible in Trump’s America

By Liz Theoharis

It was a moment somewhat like this, 30 years ago, that turned me into a biblical scholar. In the lead-up to the passage of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, political and religious leaders quoted scripture to justify shutting down food programs and kicking mothers and their babies off public assistance. Those leaders, many of them self-described Christians, chose to ignore the majority of passages in the Bible that preached “good news” to the poor and promised freedom to those captive to injustice and oppression. Instead, they put forward unethical and ahistorical (mis)interpretations and (mis)appropriations of biblical texts to prop up American imperial power and punish the poor in the name of a warped morality.

Three decades later, the Trump administration and its theological apologists are working overtime, using Jesus’s name and the Bible’s contents in even more devastating rounds of immoral biblical (mis)references. In July, there was the viral video from the Department of Homeland Security, using the “Here I am, Lord. Send me” quotation from Isaiah — commonly cited when ordaining faith leaders and including explicit references to marginalized communities impacted by displacement and oppression — to recruit new agents for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, a job that now comes with a $50,000 signing bonus, thanks to Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s former pastor went even further in marrying the Bible to anti-immigrant hatred by saying, “Is the Bible in favor of these ICE raids?… The answer is yes.” He then added: “The Bible does not require wealthy Christian nations to self-immolate for the horrible crime of having a flourishing economy and way of life, all right? The Bible does not permit the civil magistrate to steal money from its citizens to pay for foreign nationals to come destroy our culture.”

A month earlier, during a speech announcing the bombing of Iran, President Trump exhorted God to bless America’s bombs (being dropped on innocent families and children): “And in particular, God, I want to just say, we love you God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East, God bless Israel, and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.”

And in May, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and Republican congressional representatives formed a prayer circle on the floor of the House as they prepared to codify the president’s Big Beautiful Bill. Of course, that very bill threatens to cut off millions of Americans from life-saving food and healthcare. (Consider it a bizarre counterpoint to Jesus’s feeding of the 5,000 and providing free health care to lepers.)

The Antichrist

And if that weren’t enough twisting of the Bible to bless the rich and admonish the poor, enter tech mogul Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir and the man behind the curtain of so much now going on in Washington. Though many Americans may be increasingly familiar with him, his various companies, and his political impact, many of us have missed the centrality of his version of Christianity and the enigmatic “religious” beliefs that go with it.

In Vanity Fair this spring, journalist Zoe Bernard emphasized the central role Thiel has already played in the Christianization of Silicon Valley: “I guarantee you,” one Christian entrepreneur told her, “there are people that are leveraging Christianity to get closer to Peter Thiel.”

Indeed, his theological beliefs grimly complement his political ones. “When you don’t have a transcendent religious belief,” he said, “you end up just looking around at other people. And that is the problem with our atheist liberal world. It is just the madness of crowds.” Remember, this is the same Thiel who, in a 2009 essay, openly questioned the compatibility of democracy and freedom, advocating for a system where power would be concentrated among those with the expertise to drive “progress” — a new version of the survival of the fittest in the information age. Such a worldview couldn’t contrast more strongly with the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus demonstrates his preferential option for the poor and his belief in bottom-up strategies rather than top down ones.

More recently, Thiel has positioned himself “right” in the middle of the Republican Party. He served as Trump’s liaison to Silicon Valley in his first term. Since then, he has convened and supported a new cohort of conservatives (many of whom also claim a right-wing Christianity), including Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump’s Director of Policy Planning Michael Anton, AI and crypto czar billionaire David Sacks, and Elon Musk, who spent a quarter of a billion dollars getting Trump elected the second time around. Thiel is also close to Curtis Yarvin, the fellow who “jokingly” claimed that American society no longer needs poor people and believes they should instead be turned into biofuel. (A worldview that simply couldn’t be more incompatible with Christianity’s core tenets.)

Particularly relevant to recent political (and ideological) developments, especially the military occupation of Washington, D.C., Thiel is also close to Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of Palantir and founder of the Cicero Institute, a right-wing think tank behind a coordinated attack on the homeless now sweeping the nation. That’s right, there’s a throughline from Peter Thiel to President Donald Trump’s demand that “the homeless have to move out immediately… FAR from the Capital.” In July, Trump produced an executive order facilitating the removal of housing encampments in Washington, a year after the Supreme Court upheld a law making it a crime, if you don’t have a home, to sleep or even breathe outside. And Thiel, Lonsdale, and the Cicero Institute aren’t just responsible for those attacks on unhoused people and “blue cities”; they also bear responsibility for faith leaders being arrested and fined for their support of unhoused communities and their opposition, on religious grounds, to the mistreatment of the poor.

On top of this troubling mix of Christianity and billionaires, however, I find myself particularly chagrined that Thiel is offering an oversold four-part lecture series on the “antichrist” through a nonprofit called ACTS 17 collective that is to start in September in San Francisco. News stories about the ACTS 17 collective tend to focus on Christians organizing in Silicon Valley and the desire to put salvation through Jesus above personal success or charity for the poor. That sounds all too ominous, especially for those of us who take seriously the biblical command to stop depriving the poor of rights, to end poverty on earth (as it is in heaven), and defend the very people the Bible prioritizes.

For instance, Trae Stephens (who worked at Palantir and is partners with Thiel in a venture capital fund) is the husband of Michelle Stephens, the founder of the ACTS 17 collective. In an interview with Emma Goldberg of the New York Times, Michelle Stephens describes how “we are always taught as Christians to serve the meek, the lowly, the marginalized… I think we’ve realized that, if anything, the rich, the wealthy, the powerful need Jesus just as much.”

In an article at the Denison Forum, she’s even more specific about her biblical and theological interpretation of poverty and the need to care for those with more rather than the poor. She writes, “Those who see Christ’s message to the poor and needy as the central pillar of the gospel make a similar mistake. While social justice movements have done a great deal to point out our society’s longstanding sins and call believers to action, it can be tempting for that message to become more prominent than our innate need for Jesus to save us.” Such a statement reminds me of the decades-long theological pushback I lived through even before the passage of welfare reform and the continued juxtaposition of Jesus and justice since.

A Battle for the Bible

Of course, such a battle for the Bible is anything but new in America. It reaches back long before the rise of a new brand of Christianity in Silicon Valley. In the 1700s and 1800s, slaveholders quoted the book of Philemon and lines from St. Paul’s epistles to claim that slavery had been ordained by God, while ripping the pages of Exodus from bibles they gave to the enslaved. During the Gilded Age of the nineteenth century, churches and politicians alike preached what was called a “prosperity gospel” that extolled the virtues of industrial capitalism. Decades later, segregationists continued to use stray biblical verses to rubber-stamp Jim Crow practices, while the Moral Majority, founded in 1979 by Baptist minister Jerry Falwell, Sr., helped mainstream a new generation of Christian extremists in national politics.

Over the past decades, the use of the Bible to justify what passes for “law and order” (and the punishing of the poor) has only intensified. In Donald Trump’s first term, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended the administration’s policy of separating immigrant children from their families at the border with a passage from the Apostle Paul’s epistle to the Romans: “I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders summed up the same idea soon after in this way: “It is very biblical to enforce the law.” And in his first speech as speaker of the House, Mike Johnson told his colleagues, “I believe that Scripture, the Bible, is very clear: that God is the one who raises up those in authority,” an echo of the New Testament’s Epistle to the Romans, in which Paul writes that “the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”

Over the past several years, Republican politicians and religious leaders have continued to use biblical references to punish the poor, quoting texts to justify cutting people off from healthcare and food assistance. A galling example came when Representative Jodey Arrington (R-TX), rebutting a Jewish activist who referenced a commandment in Leviticus to feed the hungry, quoted 2 Thessalonians to justify increasing work requirements for people qualifying for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). And that was just one of many Republican attacks on the low-income food assistance program amid myriad attempts to shred the social welfare system in the lead-up to President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” the largest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in American history and a crowning achievement of Russell Vought’s Project 2025.  Arrington said: “But there’s also, you know, in the Scripture, tells us in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3:10 he says, uh, ‘For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: if a man will not work, he shall not eat.’ And then he goes on to say ‘We hear that some among you are idle’… I think it’s a reasonable expectation that we have work requirements.”

And Arrington has been anything but alone. The same passage, in fact, had already been used by Representatives Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Stephen Lee Fincher (R-TN) to justify cutting food stamps during a debate over an earlier farm bill. And Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL) used similarly religious language, categorizing people as deserving and undeserving, to argue against a healthcare plan that protects those of us with pre-existing conditions. He insisted that only “people who lead good lives” and “have done the things to keep their bodies healthy” should receive reduced costs for health care.

Such “Christian” politicians regularly misuse Biblical passages to blame the impoverished for their poverty. There is never a suggestion, of course, that the rich, who have functionally stolen people’s wages and engorged themselves by denying them healthcare, are in any way to blame.

A Theology of Liberation for a Time Like This

Such interpretations of biblical texts are damaging to everyone’s lives (except, of course, the superrich), but especially the poor. And — though you wouldn’t know it from such Republicans — they are counter to the main themes of the Bible’s texts. The whole of the Christian Bible, starting with Genesis and ending with the Book of Revelation, has an arc of justice to it. The historical equivalents of anti-poverty programs run through it all.

That arc starts in the Book of Exodus with manna (bread) that shows up day after day, so no one has too much or too little. This is a likely response to the Egyptian Pharaoh setting up a system where a few religious and political leaders amassed great wealth at the expense of the people. God’s plan, on the other hand, was for society to be organized around meeting the needs of all people, including describing how political and religious leaders are supposed to release slaves, forgive debts, pay people what they deserve, and distribute funds to the needy. The biblical arc of justice then continues through the prophets who insist that the way to love and honor God is to promote programs that uplift the poor and marginalized, while decrying those with power who cloak oppression in religious terms and heretical versions of Christian theology.

My own political and moral roots are in the welfare rights and homeless union survival movements, efforts led by poor and dispossessed people organizing a “new underground railroad” and challenging Christianity to talk the talk and walk the walk of Christ. Such a conviction was captured by Reverend Yvonne Delk at the 1992 “Up and Out of Poverty Survival Summit,” when she declared that society, including the church, must move to the position that “poor people are not sinners, but poverty is a sin against God that could and should be ended.”

Delk’s words echo others from 20 years earlier. In 1972, Beulah Sanders, a leader of the National Welfare Rights Organization, the largest organization of poor people in the 1960s and 1970s, spoke to the National Council of Churches. “I represent all of those poor people who are on welfare and many who are not,” she said, “people who believe in the Christian way of life… people whose nickels and dimes and quarters have built the Christian churches of America. Because we believe in Christianity, we have continued to support the Christian churches… We call upon you… to join with us in the National Welfare Rights Organization. We ask for your moral, personal, and financial support in this battle for bread, dignity, and justice for all of our people. If we fail in our struggle, Christianity will have failed.”

In a Trumpian world, where Christian extremism is becoming the norm, we must not let the words of Beulah Sanders be forgotten or the worst fears of countless prophets and freedom fighters come true. Rather, we must build the strength to make a theological and spiritual vision of everybody-in-nobody-out a reality and create the capacity, powered by faith, to make it so. Now is the time. May we make it so.

Liz Theoharis, a TomDispatch regular, is a theologian, ordained minister, and anti-poverty activist. 

10 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

The Department of War

By David Swanson

Restoring the original and non-Orwellian name to the U.S. Department of War ought to have a positive impact on people’s speech and understanding.

Yes, of course, Trump did it in order to celebrate the sadistic malevolence associated with the word “war.” He did it while pursuing horrific wars in Palestine and Ukraine, threatening (and beginning) wars on Venezuela and Iran, and moving massive resources from human and environmental needs into war preparations in the U.S. and its vassal NATO members. He immediately threatened to invade Chicago and show it the meaning of the newly restored name.

Yes, of course, 78 years of propaganda will not be undone quickly. All or most of the governments around the world that copied the U.S. in renaming their militaries “defense” will fervently resist switching back. Even peace activists relentlessly talk about “the Defense Department,” “the defense industry,” “defense contractors,” etc. If decades of passionate advocacy by some of us for not parroting the very propaganda we work against has had virtually no impact, it can be expected to take at least a few weeks before people flip their linguistic habits in obedience to a fascist buffoon.

But flipping those linguistic habits, for whatever reason, remains something that would benefit us all. Words shape our thinking as much as communicate it. We shouldn’t applaud Trump for dropping the pretense that wars are waged for something other than sadism, power, and profit, because he’s trying to normalize the glorification of sadism, power, and profit. But if those who oppose evil were to drop the pretense that the greatest evil in the world is “defensive” and “humanitarian,” we’d be much better off.

If Congress had to pass National War Authorization and Appropriations Acts instead of so-called Nation “Defense” Acts, it might suddenly be possible to nudge the gears in a Congressional head or three into motion. The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to raise and support armies for no longer than two years at a time. It does not envision the permanent Military Industrial Congressional “Intelligence” Media Academic Think Tank Complex. Endless massive, ever-growing War Authorization Acts could make Congress stop and notice the absence during the past 84 years of any Declaration of War, or of any moment in which the U.S. War Department was not at war, or of any war that could be said to have accomplished anything useful.

Trump believes that restoring the name “War Department” will restore an imaginary age in which the United States “won” wars — a powerful admission that for 78 years, the U.S. government has spent trillions of dollars killing millions of people, destroying societies, ripping down the rule of law, causing horrific and lasting environmental damage, fueling bigotry, restricting civil liberties, corroding culture, and depriving positive initiatives of resources that could have transformed the world for the better. But — in the words of Jeanette Rankin, who voted in the U.S. Congress against both of the “beautiful” world wars — you can no more win a war than a hurricane. The U.S. “won” imperialist and coalition wars in the days of the Department of War by committing genocidal slaughters of a sort deemed grotesquely unacceptable in the age leading up to the current livestreamed genocide in Gaza, and by allowing allies like the Soviet Union to do most of the killing and dying (rather like Ukrainians today) before producing countless Hollywood movies suggesting a different story.

Restoring the acceptability of genocides, carpet bombings, and nuclear bombings doesn’t flow inevitably from restoring the name of the institution responsible. If we choose, the unconscionable horror of such things can instead mean that admitting what the Pentagon is, and stamping that disgusting, barbarous title over its front door could allow the development of a significant anti-war contingent in the United States. Such a contingent should not be simply anti-Trump. We should not be bothered by what he calls the war machine, but by the war machine itself — even when the name change is resisted or reversed.

One way to help this along would be to conscientiously remove from our speech and our thoughts, not just “defense” but all variety of insidious war propaganda terms. We might try also giving honest names to every governmental department. We might consider alternatives to war, and the case for war abolition.

David Swanson, Author, Activist, Journalist, Radio Host.

10 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

The US Tightens the Dollar’s Death Grip on Brazilian Democracy

By Camila Villard Duran

ANGERS – In a letter to Brazil’s largest banks, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has demanded to know what steps they were taking to comply with the sanctions recently imposed on Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. President Donald Trump’s administration was delivering an unmistakable message: America calls the shots, and others must fall in line.

The decision to add Moraes to the US list of “Specially Designated Nationals” is unprecedented, given that he is neither an oligarch accused of corruption nor a human-rights abuser. Instead, Moraes has been targeted for overseeing criminal cases related to the January 8, 2023, insurrection in Brasilia, when supporters of then-President Jair Bolsonaro stormed the National Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidential palace in a bid to overturn his election defeat.

While this may look like a technical compliance issue, Trump’s actions are an assault on the independence of Brazil’s judiciary. Sanctioning Moraes does more than restrict his personal finances; it indirectly pressures the institutions he represents. It also forces Brazilian banks to choose between upholding domestic court rulings – thereby incurring severe US penalties – and preserving access to global markets. Either choice risks undermining their legitimacy at home and abroad.

The OFAC letter also underscores the fragility of economic sovereignty. While the Magnitsky Act is formally a US statute, the dollar’s role as the world’s leading reserve currency extends its reach far beyond America’s borders.

Brazilian banks, like their counterparts around the world, rely on US banks to clear dollar transactions, and many maintain subsidiaries in New York and other major financial centers. Whether you want to export soybeans to Asia or issue bonds on Wall Street, the financial infrastructure you depend on is American. And this dependency means that disregarding OFAC is not an act of defiance but a step toward financial exile, if not outright ruin.

This is the paradox of sovereignty. Legally, Brazil’s courts can rule that US sanctions do not apply domestically, since under both constitutional and international law, foreign measures must be formally enacted to take effect. But economically, compliance is unavoidable, given that its trade and financial systems depend on dollar-based infrastructure beyond its control. In practice, monetary sovereignty ends at the edge of the dollar system.

The irony is striking. The United States once wielded the Magnitsky Act to confront authoritarian abuses abroad, most notably by sanctioning Russian officials implicated in the 2009 murder of tax adviser and whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky. Today, it is using the same law to intimidate a judge seeking to defend Brazil’s democratic order. By weaponizing foreign-policy tools to influence domestic legal processes, the Trump administration has effectively reduced Brazil’s sovereignty to a test of obedience.

Brazilian policymakers are in a difficult position. Routing Moraes’s personal financial transactions through domestic cooperatives is, at best, a temporary fix that does nothing to resolve the underlying issue. And longer-term alternatives, such as global payment systems built on blockchain technology, remain far from viable.

With Brazil still caught in the dollar’s gravitational pull, the current crisis underscores the urgency of investing in alternatives to the dollar-based system. As I argued in a recent policy paper, new technologies and platforms – from blockchain-based networks to instant cross-border payments – could make settlements more efficient and potentially challenge the dollar’s dominance.

For now, though, these initiatives are no more than fragmented pilot projects confined to “coalitions of the willing,” often excluding the developing economies that are most dependent on the dollar. Moreover, even the most advanced multi-currency platforms still revert to the dollar or the euro when local currencies lack sufficient liquidity, reproducing the very hierarchy they claim to challenge.

That said, these monetary innovations offer a glimpse of a future in which multilateral infrastructures are no longer controlled by a single government or private organizations operating under one country’s jurisdiction. But realizing such a future will require extraordinary diplomatic and technical cooperation, along with new governance frameworks. Until then, the dollar’s extraterritorial power will remain unmatched.

In that sense, the OFAC letter is more than a message to Brazilian banks; it is a reminder to all countries of the extraordinary power the US exerts through its control of the world’s financial infrastructure. To counter it, they must work together to develop credible alternatives, such as central bank digital currencies, interoperable instant-payment networks, and broader multilateral arrangements. Otherwise, their monetary sovereignty and political autonomy will be left at the mercy of American policymakers.

Camila Villard Duran is Associate Professor of Law at ESSCA School of Management.

9 September 2025

Source: countercurrents.org

Destroying Gaza City. Binoy Kampmark

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Destroying cultures and eradicating the legacies of a people is a game the parochial and the dim-witted delight in. While this should be shunned and punished in international law, a general discomfort of purpose seems to trouble the friends of Israel as the state goes about its business of ruining what vestiges of living might exist in the Gaza Strip. As Israel’s warriors of vengeful virtue go about demolishing one of the last parts of Gaza that has any infrastructure worth mentioning, the usual ceremony of impotent effusion and concern is registered across the networks of the world.

By the end of October 2024, Corey Scher and Jamon Van Den Hoek noted that the Gaza Strip had been subjected to “one of the most intense bombing campaigns of the 21st century, driving widespread urban damage.” With a focus on northern Gaza, the authors noted that 191,263 (three-fifths) of all buildings were either damaged or destroyed. In such outlets of sober discernment as Lawfare, we find the authors aghast that the operations in Gaza eclipse those of more recent operations of levelling mayhem, be it the destruction of Mariupol in Ukraine, where 32 percent of the buildings were destroyed or damaged, or the Syrian town of Aleppo, an ancient city victim to a war that saw damage to 40 percent of its buildings during three years of remorseless conflict.

In language so corrupted it conveys the opposite of what is intended, Israel has again used the term “humanitarian zone” in areas it repeatedly bombs, whose residents are being consistently killed. Leaflets dropped over Gaza City on September 7 made the bold and mendacious claim:

“From this moment it is announced that the al-Mawasi area is a humanitarian zone and steps will be taken to provide better humanitarian services there”. (They were evidently not up to scratch before.) 

The Gaza Ministry of Interior could only capitalise on this in a statement.

“We call on citizens in Gaza City to beware of the occupation’s deceitful claims about the existence of a humanitarian zone in the south of the Strip.”

Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud reports that the IDF is “using remotely controlled explosive robots, and detonating them in residential streets, destroying neighbourhoods.” He goes on to say that homes, public facilities, schools and a mosque were also hit in Sheikh Radwan. The head of the Palestinian NGOs network, Amjad Shawa, also observed that Israeli forces were “aiming to force Palestinians to the southern areas using these explosions, but everyone knows that there is no safe place in the south or any humanitarian zone.”

Demolitions are now taking place at will, with the high-rise buildings in Gaza City falling to attacks. BBC Verify notes that the IDF is replicating its pattern of demolishing structures in southern Gaza.

“Thousands of buildings in areas including Rafah and Khan Younis have been demolished by controlled explosions and demolition contractors in the area”.

Along the way, tents have disappeared in such areas as Zeitoun. Palestinians, treated like much incidental livestock in war, have again been forced to move on under callous direction. Israeli military spokesperson, the gruesome Avichay Adraee, growled his bit of advice that residents leave the city to move to a designated coastal area of Khan Younis risibly called a “humanitarian zone”. On social media, Adraee assures his own conscience – and those of his colleagues: residents are told to leave such specific buildings as the Al-Ruya complex because of alleged Hamas “terrorist infrastructure” in it.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu adds a vicious flourish, treating the systematic destruction of Gaza City’s infrastructure as entailing the necessary removal of “terror towers” and “nests of terror” (50, to date, having been destroyed).

“Now all of this is just an introduction, just a prelude, to the main intense operation – a ground manoeuvre of our forces, who are organising and gathering in Gaza City.”

Paying lip service to humanitarian considerations, he also wished it to be on record that those in Gaza “take advantage of this opportunity and listen” with care to his words:

“You have been warned. Get out of there.”

The time given for leaving such structures is a question of debate.  Aida Abu Kas, resident of the now demolished Sousi Tower, claims that a mere 20 minutes was given by the IDF to take what belongings they could and leave the building before its razing. A better perspective of Israeli intentions is offered by defence minister Israel Katz. In posting a video on social media featuring the destruction of Sousi Tower, he ecstatically claimed (war crime prosecutors, take keen note) that,

“The gates of hell are being unlocked in Gaza City.”

In another post of ample blood lust on the X platform, Katz “a last warning to the murderers and rapists of Hamas in Gaza, and in luxury hotels abroad: Release the hostages, and put down your weapons – or Gaza will be destroyed and you will be obliterated.” In such exercises, distinguishing between civilians and combatants no longer takes place. Targets, and culpability, are conflated, as they have been from the outset. The next hellish stage is being set.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University.

9 September 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca

The End of the Unipolar World Order – A Tectonic Shift Away from the West. Peter Koenig

By Peter Koenig

“No mountain or ocean can distance people who have shared aspirations,” China’s President Xi Jinping said in July 2024, addressing leaders from fellow Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member states and a few other nations in Astana, Kazakhstan.

It is not reaching too far, saying that this year’s 25th SCO Summit (SCO) in Tianjin, China, from 31 August to 1 September 2025, fulfilled – and more – President Xi’s vision of 2024. The summit caused a tectonic shift in the conventional world order.

China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Bin told a news conference in Beijing, shortly before the SCO summit, that the 2025 SCO event be

“One of China’s most important head-of-state and home-court diplomatic events this year”.

As the Economist says, “A New Reality is Taking hold.” The “new reality” is not anti-US or anti-West; it is just separating the western unipolar aspirations from the newly created multi-polar, or perhaps better, multi-block, world, where countries aim at a peaceful cooperation towards a joint future with shared benefits.

The SCO was established in 2001 by China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Today the SCO consists of ten member-states with headquarters in Beijing. In addition to the founding members, SCO members have increased by India, Iran, Belarus, and Pakistan. SCO members account for 23% of the world’s GDP and for 43% of the world’s population.

Further attendance included high-level government officials from Myanmar, Egypt, Cambodia, Nepal, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Maldives, Turkey, as well as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Secretary-General Kao Kim Hourn, and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

This year’s summit made clearly the SCO the guiding light for the Global South which includes the 11 BRICS countries, plus the 10 BRICS partners, added at the 16th BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia, in October 2024.

While even the UNSG, Mr. Guterres, was invited – while the UN was or still is (?) considered by the US and the West in general as the World Organization in the western camp – President Trump felt snubbed by China, “left out” from the world shifting SCO event in Tianjin.

So, Trump invented a last-minute opportunity to leave his mark on the meeting by requesting President Xi literally on the eve of the SCO summit for “military talks,” a phone call between the two defense ministers (in the US now called War Minister, as the Ministry of Defense has been re-christened by Trump as War Ministry).

The Chinese Foreign Ministry said that Beijing rejected the proposal, reasoning “a lack of mutual understanding between the two countries”, asking a pertinent question:

“Is there any sincerity in and significance of any communication like this?”

Of course not. Trump just wanted to interfere in the SCO summit, showing his self-styled emperor head. But to no avail. The West was absent – the “naked emperor” as well as his European puppets, the (almost) defunct European Union, and especially the non-elected and every time more rejected European Commission (EC).

Imagine just a few weeks earlier, a delegation of the EC including Kaja Kallas, the Commission’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, the Commission’s top-diplomat so to speak, visited Beijing to discuss tariffs, but on the side they were insinuating that China should distance herself from Russia.

So much aggression, let alone undiplomatic thinking and acting – like at home spending taxpayers’ money destined for social programs, instead for a monster armament to go to war against Russia – aggression and a war philosophy that can only lead to a EU downfall which is accelerating by the day.

To add insult to injury, the symbolic leader of the EU, Germany, her Chancellor Friedrich Merz said recently:

 “Putin is a war criminal. He is perhaps the most serious war criminal of our time that we have seen on a large scale. We must be clear about how to deal with war criminals: There is no room for leniency.”

It is time for the Real World, the Global South, to distance themselves from the western warmongers and war-makers. This is just happening with the 25th SCO Summit – a new awakening for peace, cooperation, and togetherness in the spirit of working towards a future of shared benefits.

A future with shared benefits is not possible by western economic standards and principles, that followed since 1989 the so-called Washington Consensus, an un-stated agreement between the three most powerful western financial institutions, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank – to “subdue” the “emerging and developing world” with debt, so as to get a hold of their natural resources.

This disequilibrium already started with the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference during which the World Bank and IMF were created, two institutions which were and still are veto-dominated by Washington. Real economic equality and development had and up to now has no chance under these circumstances. Instead, it is abusive exploitation and neocolonialism.

The SCO decision at their Summit to create an SCO Development Bank bodes well with a new future of togetherness and cooperation. It fits right in with the Chinese Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB). It is a vivid sign of pulling free from the neoliberal western financial institutions making their living by exploiting “socioeconomic development”, instead of enhancing it.

Together and perhaps with a newly furbished BRICS New Development Bank, they will allow the Global South to evolve and grow according to their sovereign and independent terms, using instead of an isolating “protective” tariff system – Trump-style – their comparative advantages to deal and trade with each other – tariff-free. No conflicts but cooperation.

See also this.

This SCO Summit was not a western-style aggression event of “The Willing”, but a China-initiated reorientation of the world order, in which long-term objectives were envisioned by real leaders who had seen and lived enough of western-dictated aggressions, wars and destruction, but instead opted for Peace and Cooperation – and it very much looks like they may succeed.

In his opening speech, President Xi made this point clear: 

“Humanity is again faced with a choice of peace or war, dialogue or confrontation, and win-win outcomes; or zero-sum games.”

This clearly creates a growing chasm between East and West. The former seeking peaceful constructive development, while the latter are still clinging to their destructive economic model, wars and killing for a growing military complex and a tech-world that goes hand in hand with the agenda of transhumanization and destruction of humanity.

The highly successful SCO Summit in Tianjin was deliberately staged just before China’s Grand Military Parade on Tiananmen Square, marking 80 years since the end of World War II. It was the culmination of a new “World Order”, one of Peace – demonstrating the West, silently but visibly, that a new epoch is about to begin.

The image of presenting the heads of China’s Xi Jinping; Russia’s Vladimir Putin; India’s Narendra Modi; Iran’s Masoud Pezeshkian; and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, side by side speaks volumes. They embody a new power base – power for Peace and for a new world order of a common future with shared benefits.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world.

9 September 2025

Source: globalresearch.ca