On April 22 in one of the most inhuman terrorist attacks seen in India, terrorists killed 26 entirely innocent tourists and injured several others in the tourist resort of Baisaran Meadow, located in the famous Pahalgam area of Kashmir.
While the terrorists fired indiscriminately initially, it soon became clear that they were targeting tourists in particular, and among them they were more specifically targeting Hindu men.
In such a situation the local Muslim people may have stayed back quietly, considering that their position was safe, but this is not the way Syed Adil Hussain Shah looked at the situation. A local youth from a remote village who earned his livelihood from providing mules to tourists, Adil just could not bear to see innocent people being killed in such a cruel way. Forgetting the threat to his own life, in anguish he shouted at the terrorists—why are you killing innocent persons. The terrorists responded by shooting at him too and he died on the spot.
However some eye witness accounts have stated that Adil went much beyond merely raising his voice. A woman tourist said that he had started fighting the terrorists despite being unarmed himself and according to another account he tried to snatch the gun of one of the terrorists(see report in Dainik Tribune, April 24).
Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, went to attend the last rites of Adil and to console the family. He praised the exceptional courage and deep humanity of Adil. Despite the terror conditions, hundreds of people gathered to pay their homage to the brave youth.
While Adil made the supreme sacrifice, several other local (Muslim) persons also took risks to rescue endangered tourists and provide shelter to them. An elderly tourist from Gujarat told the reporter of Dainik Bhaskar newspaper that in the midst of firing local shopkeepers and mule-owners appeared like angels to rush injured persons to hospital. Another family from Maharashtra told the newspaper that at the time of the attack a taxi driver, also named Adil, provided them shelter and later arranged for food. A trader from Chattisgarh had come with an 11 member group, including children, for a holiday. He told the newspaper that a local trader Nazakat Ali had rescued them from a dangerous situation at the time of firing. At the same time, several mosques had opened their doors and arranged food for stranded tourists and other passengers in the aftermath of the terror attack (See Dainik Bhaskar April 24).
All over Kashmir protests and shutdowns have been organized to condemn the terrorist attack and to express grief for the victims of the tragedy. Candles were lit at several places to honor the memory of the innocent people who had been killed so suddenly and in such a cruel way. At Makka Market the Union President said, “There is mourning in the whole of Kashmir. Our guests have been killed.” Another protester in Kashmir said, “Imagine the trauma of a child whose father was killed in front of him.” He said what distressed him most was that the attackers used the name of religion and Kashmir in the attack.
There is some evidence that this terrorist attack has a wider aim of not just disrupting peace and tourism (a leading source of livelihood here), but in addition disrupting inter-faith harmony in India. Just a few days before the attack, on April 16 the Pakistan army chief Gen Asim Munir had gone out of his way to make highly controversial and inflammatory remarks on big dividing lines between Hindus and Muslims and their alleged inability to live together in harmony.
Hence this is a particularly important time in India to protect inter-faith harmony, and all those Muslim residents of Pahalgam who rushed to the rescue of threatened Hindu tourists, in at least one case the rescuer even sacrificing his own life for the cause, have shown the way forward for maintaining inter-faith harmony. The people of Kashmir have also come out in large numbers to voice their strong opposition against violence in the name of religion. By rejecting those who are trying to provoke violence and disharmony, and by strengthening inter-faith harmony and peace, people of the entire country can give a befitting reply to those enemies of humanity who are trying to provoke disharmony and violence.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now.
What happened yesterday in Pahalgam will be etched into the memory of this valley for years to come.In the lap of Kashmir’s mountains an unimaginable act of violence unfolded. Armed infiltrators opened fire with no warning, no mercy, and no humanity indiscriminately targeting locals and tourists alike. Many lost their lives in a matter of moments. Families were torn apart and what remained was a shattered sense of calm in a region already exhausted by decades of pain.
While investigators are still trying to piece together who these attackers were and what agenda they followed, social media wasted no time in drawing its own conclusions. Before the facts could surface, a new storm of hate took over online platforms with many accusing the local Muslim community of supporting or sheltering the perpetrators.
As a Kashmiri, as a human being, I ask: how long must we bleed before someone hears us, not blames us?
The Horror on the Ground
Eyewitness accounts from the scene paint a picture that’s hard to even imagine. Screams echoed through the valley. Blood stained the earth that just hours before had seen children playing and tourists snapping pictures of the river flowing by. Among the many heartbreaking visuals circulating, one stood out in tears barely able to speak, describing how the terrorists questioned her husband’s identity. They said he “didn’t look like a Muslim” and shot him dead right in front of her.
This was not just an attack. This was a targeted massacre. A deliberate act to instill fear and to create division using religion as a weapon. And perhaps most dangerously to turn communities against one another. But as the bullets tore through bodies they didn’t distinguish between Hindu or Muslim, some of those killed were Kashmiri Muslims. Some were Hindu tourists. All were innocent.
A Valley Known for Warmth, Now Under Suspicion
What followed the attack has been just as devastating in a different way. Instead of unified grief and call for justice, the internet erupted with hate, hashtags blaming Muslims, trolling Kashmiris, and wild theories about “locals helping terrorists” began trending. It’s a story we’ve seen before, grief gets hijacked by propaganda and the victims are made suspects.
Let me say this with complete clarity that Kashmiris especially the Muslim community had no hand in this attack. We condemn this in the strongest terms possible. Not because we feel obligated to defend ourselves but because we are just as devastated. We are the ones lighting candles. We are the ones burying the dead and we are the ones being accused all at the same time.
Kashmiris are known across the world for their hospitality, for serving kehwa to strangers, for offering rooms to stranded travelers, for treating guests as family. It is simply impossible to believe that the same people would turn into monsters overnight. That narrative is not just false. It is malicious.
The Intent to Divide, But Not On Our Watch
This incident feels like a deliberate attempt to disturb the fragile social fabric that still holds Kashmir together. Over the years despite everything, Hindus and Muslims in the valley have lived side by side celebrated festivals together and mourned together. Attacks like this and the divisive response that follows seem designed to break that bond.
But it won’t work because we refuse to hate our neighbours. We know each other too well. We’ve shared food, laughter and pain. And now, we must share the burden of this tragedy not by blaming each other but by standing together.
Kashmiri Muslim leaders, social activists and citizens across the valley have publicly condemned the incident.Candlelight marches have been held not just by the public but also backed by political leaders, many of whom belong to the very communities being wrongfully accused. That unity matters. It shows the world that we are not divided, and we will not allow terrorists or hatefilled tweets to divide us.
This isn’t the first time Kashmiris have spoken out against terrorism. Every time such horror has struck whether from across the border or within the people of this land have risen to condemn it. We have mourned, marched, and we demand justice because we have suffered enough.
The Missing Conversation: Security Lapses
While blame is being thrown around so freely on the internet, very few are talking about something that desperately needs to be addressed that is “the lapse in security”.
Pahalgam is not just a local destination it’s one of the most popular tourist spots in Kashmir and it lies close to the border. With heavy footfall and a known risk of cross border infiltration, it should be under constant surveillance. Yet, according to multiple accounts, army bunkers in the region were either unmanned or inadequately staffed. There were reportedly no active patrols in the mountain zones where the attack took place.
Why weren’t troops stationed to safeguard the area especially when the flow of tourists has recently increased.
The role of the defence forces cannot be ignored in this situation. This isn’t about blaming them, it’s about accountability. The protection of civilians is the state’s responsibility. If gaps existed that allowed this attack to happen, those must be examined and addressed with urgency. We need answers and we need change.
A Cry for Peace and Dignity
More than anything, what Kashmiris want right now is peace. We are exhausted. For decades, we have lived under the constant fear of violence from one side or the other. We have lost lives, livelihoods and even our voices. But through it all we’ve kept hoping and hoping that one day we will be allowed to live freely and safely like everyone else. We are not asking for sympathy but for understanding. We are not asking for praise. We are asking for fairness.
And we are certainly not asking to be judged by the actions of murderers we had no part in protecting or supporting.
The government must introspect. The investigation must be swift, honest and transparent. And the narrative especially on digital platforms must be reshaped with facts not fears.
The victims of this attack were human beings. Their lives mattered. Their deaths must not be turned into political fodder. We must honour them by demanding truth and standing united not by deepening divides.
Final Words
Pahalgam is grieving. Kashmir is grieving. But amidst the mourning a dangerous fire of division is being lit. We, the people must be the ones to put it out not with more words but with actions, solidarity, empathy, and with courage.
Because no matter where we come from or what faith we follow, terrorism is our shared enemy and peace is our shared right.
Let’s not allow bullets to decide our futures. Let truth, justice and humanity lead us forward.
Aaqib Javid is a medical student in biotechnology from Trathpora, Kupwara, Kashmir
In the death of Pope Francis, the world has lost one of the greatest personalities of modern times! We are saddened that he is no longer in our midst!
He was truly a compassionate pastor with a warm, loving heart for the poor and marginalised, the excluded and the exploited, the refugees and the migrants, the LGBTGIA+ community, the victims of war and human trafficking and in fact, with all sub-alterns and those who live on the peripheries of society.
Pope Francis transcended boundaries and exclusiveness, divisions and discrimination of every kind. He was convinced that humans should build bridges and not walls, to reach out to others, particularly the lost, the last and the least. His Encyclical ‘Fratelli Tutti’ speaks strongly about this.
Pope Francis was deeply troubled by what is happening to the environment. He cared for our common home and wished that all take responsibility to ensure that our planet earth is liveable for all. His writings ‘Laudato Si’ and ‘Laudate Deum’ on the environment, bear testimony to his concern.
Pope Francis was a man of peace! He spoke out unequivocally against every war and the industrial military complex; he took a strong stand against the ‘culture of death’. He spoke directly to the most powerful people on earth reminding them of what they should be doing. His last tweet on 20 April evening began with “I would like us to renew our hope that peace is possible…”
Above all, Pope Francis was a man of God, sent to be a pilgrim on earth; to motivate all of us with a newer, deeper and more meaningful hope! He was a complete human being who left no stone unturned to make our world a more just, peaceful and humane place for all! He was and is a SAINT!
Millions all over will miss him! In his death the world is orphaned!
Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ is a human rights, justice, reconciliation & peace activist/writer Email: cedricprakash@gmail.com
Millions of Catholics are mourning the passing of Pope FrancisI.
After having courageously pronounced his last words Buona Pasqua (Happy Easter) on Easter Sunday, he blessed the crowd of thousands of people from his balcony.
A powerful message was read on his behalf:
“There can be no peace without freedom of religion,
freedom of thought,
freedom of expression and respect for the views of others.”
From the inception of his Vatican mandate in March 2013, Pope Francis I has been portrayed by the international community as a left-leaning champion of “Liberation Theology” committed to world peace and global poverty alleviation.
But there is “more than meets the eye.”
Prior to his election by the papal conclave, the role of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina’s “Dirty War” was known and documented.
It was known to the US State Department. It must have been known to one or more of the 115 “Cardinal Electors” of the Papal Conclave which convened at the Sistine Chapel on March 12, 2013.
Needless to say, both the Catholic Hierarchy as well as the international community turned a blind eye.
And the media with some exceptions has over the years remained silent.
Who was Jorge Mario Bergoglio before he became Pope?
Jorge Mario Bergoglio not only supported the military dictatorship, he also played a direct and complicit role in the “Dirty War” (la guerra sucia”) in liaison with the military junta headed by General Jorge Videla, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, torture and disappearance of progressive Catholic priests and laymen who were opposed to Argentina’s military rule.
“While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976 were released five months later, after having been tortured, six other people associated within their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos).”
In a bitter irony, the two priests sent to the torture chamber were committed to the Theology of Liberation against which Bergoglio at the time was firmly opposed.
Lest we forget, shortly after his investiture in March 2013, Pope Francis was described by the British media of having brought “Liberation Theology into the Vatican”, in the footsteps of Francis of Assisi.
That was a nonsensical statement (“fake news”): In 1976, Bergoglio’s intent (in liaison with the military junta led by General Jorge Videla) was to crush Liberation Theology.
In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.
Several years later, the survivors of the “Dirty War” openly accused Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio as well six members of their parish (who were “disappeared”), (El Mundo, 8 November 2010)
All this was known prior to his investiture. Why was it not revealed to the broader public? Catholics around the world are totally unaware of “who Pope Francis I was”, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
The following article was first written in March 2013 following the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis I by the Vatican conclave.
—Michel Chossudovsky, April 21, 2025
Pope Francis and the Dirty War
Global Research TV (GRTV) Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett
“Washington’s Pope”? Who Is Pope Francis? Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”
By Michel Chossudovsky, March 14, 2013
Author’s Note: The following article was published two days after the announcement of the decision of the Papal Conclave convened at the Sistine Chapel on March 12, 2013.
I lived through the first months of Argentina’s military government.
Much of my research goes back to March-June 1976, during my stay in Argentina as Visiting Professor at the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba.
Three years earlier, I lived through the Chilean military coup of September 11, 1973.
Apart from minor corrections, no changes were made to this article. The Appendix on declassified documents was added.
Who Is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
In 1973, he had been appointed “Provincial” of Argentina for the Society of Jesus.
In this capacity, Bergoglio was the highest ranking Jesuit in Argentina during the military dictatorship led by General Jorge Videla (1976-1983).
He later became bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires. Pope John Paul II elevated him to the title of cardinal in 2001.
When the military junta relinquished power in 1983, the duly elected president Raúl Alfonsín set up a Truth Commission pertaining to the crimes underlying the “Dirty War” (La Guerra Sucia).
The military junta had been supported covertly by Washington.
U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a behind the scenes role in the 1976 military coup.
Ironically, a major trial opened up in Buenos Aires on March 5, 2013 a week prior to Cardinal Bergoglio’s investiture as Pontiff. The ongoing trial in Buenos Aires is:
“to consider the totality of crimes carried out under Operation Condor, a coordinated campaign by various US-backed Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s to hunt down, torture and murder tens of thousands of opponents of those regimes.”
The military junta led by General Jorge Videla (right) was responsible for countless assassinations, including priests and nuns who opposed military rule following the CIA-sponsored March 24, 1976 coup which overthrew the government of Isabel Peron:
“Videla was among the generals convicted of human rights crimes, including “disappearances”, torture, murders and kidnappings. In 1985, Videla was sentenced to life imprisonment at the military prison of Magdalena.”
Wall Street and the Neoliberal Economic Agenda
One of the key appointments of the military junta (on the instructions of Wall Street) was the Minister of Economy, Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, a member of Argentina’s business establishment and a close friend of David Rockefeller.
The neoliberal macro-economic policy package adopted under Martinez de Hoz was a “carbon copy” of that imposed in October 1973 in Chile by the Pinochet dictatorship under advice from the “Chicago Boys”, following the September 11, 1973 coup d’Etat and the assassination of president Salvador Allende.
Wages were immediately frozen by decree. Real purchasing power collapsed by more than 30 percent in the 3 months following the March 24, 1976 military coup. (Author’s estimates, Cordoba, Argentina, July 1976).
The Argentinean population was impoverished.
Henry Kissinger, not to mention the late David Rockefeller, had meetings with the Junta. Under the helm of Minister of Economy Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, central bank monetary policy was largely determined by Wall Street and the IMF.
The currency market was manipulated. The Peso was deliberately overvalued leading to an insurmountable external debt. The entire national economy was precipitated into bankruptcy.
Wall Street and the Catholic Church Hierarchy
Wall Street was firmly behind the military junta which waged “The Dirty War” on its behalf. In turn, the Catholic Church hierarchy played a central role in sustaining the legitimacy of the military junta.
The Order of Jesus –which represented the Conservative yet most influential faction within the Catholic Church, closely associated with Argentina’s economic elites– was firmly behind the military junta, against so-called “Leftists” in the Peronista movement.
“The Dirty War”: Allegations Directed Against Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Condemning the military dictatorship (including its human rights violations) was a taboo within the Catholic Church. While the upper echelons of the Church were supportive of the military junta, the grassroots of the Church was firmly opposed to the imposition of military rule.
In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.
Several years later, the survivors of the “Dirty War” openly accused Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio as well six members of their parish, (El Mundo, 8 November 2010).
Bergoglio, who at the time was “Provincial” for the Society of Jesus, had ordered the two “Leftist” Jesuit priests and opponents of military rule “to leave their pastoral work” (i.e. they were fired) following divisions within the Society of Jesus regarding the role of the Catholic Church and its relations to the military junta.
While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976, were released five months later after having been tortured, six other people associated with their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos). These included four teachers associated with the parish and two of their husbands.
Upon his release, Priest Orlando Yorio “accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over [including six other people] to the death squads … Jalics refused to discuss the complaint after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Associated Press, March 13, 2013, emphasis added),
“During the first trial of leaders of the military junta in 1985, Yorio declared, “I am sure that he himself gave over the list with our names to the Navy.” The two were taken to the notorious Navy School of Mechanics (ESMA) torture center and held for over five months before being drugged and dumped in a town outside the city. (See Bill van Auken, “The Dirty War” Pope, World Socialist Website and Global Research, March 14, 2013
Among those “disappeared” by the death squads were Mónica Candelaria Mignone and María Marta Vázquez Ocampo, respectively daughter of the founder of of the CELS (Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales) Emilio Mignone and daughter of the president of Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Martha Ocampo de Vázquez. (El Periodista Online, March 2013)
María Marta Vásquez, her husband César Lugones (see picture above) and Mónica Candelaria Mignone allegedly “handed over to the death squads” by Jesuit “Provincial” Jorge Mario Bergoglio are among the thousands of “desaparecidos” (disappeared) of Argentina’s “Dirty War”, which was supported covertly by Washington under “Operation Condor.” (See memorialmagro.com.ar)
In the course of the trial initiated in 2005:
“Bergoglio [Pope Francis I] twice invoked his right under Argentine law to refuse to appear in open court, and when he eventually did testify in 2010, his answers were evasive”: “At least two cases directly involved Bergoglio. One examined the torture of two of his Jesuit priests — Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics — who were kidnapped in 1976 from the slums where they advocated liberation theology.
Yorio accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over to the death squads... by declining to tell the regime that he endorsed their work. Jalics refused to discuss it after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005 emphasis added)
The Secret Memorandum
The military government acknowledged in a Secret Memo (see below) that Father Bergoglio had accused the two priests of having established contacts with the guerilleros, and for having disobeyed the orders of the Church hierarchy (Conflictos de obedecencia). It also stated that the Jesuit order had demanded the dissolution of their group and that they had refused to abide by Bergoglio’s instructions.
The document acknowledges that the “arrest” of the two priests, who were taken to the torture and detention center at the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA, was based on information transmitted by Father Bergoglio to the military authorities. (signed by Mr. Orcoyen) (see below).
While a former member of the priests group had joined the insurgency, there was no evidence of the priests having contacts with the guerrilla movement.
“Holy Communion for the Dictators”
The accusations directed against Bergoglio regarding the two kidnapped Jesuit priests and six members of their parish are but the tip of the iceberg. While Bergoglio was an important figure in the Catholic Church, he was certainly not alone in supporting the military junta.
According to lawyer Myriam Bregman:
“Bergoglio’s own statements proved church officials knew from early on that the junta was torturing and killing its citizens”, and yet publicly endorsed the dictators. “The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support,” (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005 emphasis added)
The entire Catholic hierarchy was behind the US-sponsored military dictatorship. It is worth recalling that on March 23, 1976, on the eve of the military coup:
“Videla and other plotters received the blessing of the Archbishop of Paraná, Adolfo Tortolo, who also served as vicar of the armed forces. The day of the takeover itself, the military leaders had a lengthy meeting with the leaders of the bishop’s conference. As he emerged from that meeting, Archbishop Tortolo stated that although “the church has its own specific mission . . . there are circumstances in which it cannot refrain from participating even when it is a matter of problems related to the specific order of the state.” He urged Argentinians to “cooperate in a positive way” with the new government.” (The Humanist.org, January 2011, emphasis added)
In an interview conducted with El Sur, General Jorge Videla, who is now [passed away in May 2013] serving a life sentence for crimes against humanity confirmed that:
“He kept the country’s Catholic hierarchy informed about his regime’s policy of “disappearing” political opponents, and thatCatholic leaders offered advice on how to “manage” the policy.
Jorge Videla said he had “many conversations” with Argentina’s primate, Cardinal Raúl Francisco Primatesta, about his regime’s dirty war against left-wing activists. He said there were also conversations with other leading bishops from Argentina’s episcopal conference as well as with the country’s papal nuncio at the time, Pio Laghi.
It is worth noting that according to a 1976 statement by Archbishop Adolfo Tortolo, the military would always consult with a member of the Catholic hierarchy in the case of the “arrest” of a grassroots member of the clergy. This statement was made specifically in relation to the two kidnapped Jesuit priests, whose pastoral activities were under the authority of Society of Jesus “provincial” Jorge Mario Bergoglio. (El Periodista Online, March 2013)
In endorsing the military junta, the Catholic hierarchy was complicit in torture and mass killings, an estimated “22,000 dead and disappeared, from 1976 to 1978 … Thousands of additional victims were killed between 1978 and 1983 when the military was forced from power.” (National Security Archive, March 23, 2006)
The Role of the Vatican
The Vatican under Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II played a central role in supporting the Argentinian military junta.
Pio Laghi, the Vatican’s apostolic nuncio to Argentina, admitted “turning a blind eye” to the torture and massacres.
Laghi had personal ties to members of the ruling military junta including General Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Eduardo Massera.
Admiral Emilio Massera, in close liaison with his US handlers, was the mastermind of “La Guerra Sucia” (The Dirty War). Under the auspices of the military regime, he established:
“an interrogation and torture centre in the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA [close to Buenos Aires], … It was a sophisticated, multi-purpose establishment, vital in the military plan to assassinate an estimated 30,000 “enemies of the state”. … Many thousands of ESMA’s inmates, including, for instance, two French nuns, were routinely tortured mercilessly before being killed or dropped from aircraft into the River Plata.
Reports confirm that the Vatican’s representative Pio Laghi and Admiral Emilio Massera were friends.
The Catholc Chiurch: Chile versus Argentina
It is worth noting that in the wake of the military coup in Chile on September 11,1973, the Cardinal of Santiago de Chile, Raul Silva Henriquez, openly condemned the military junta led by General Augusto Pinochet. In marked contrast to Argentina, this stance of the Catholic hierarchy in Chile was instrumental in curbing the tide of political assassinations and human rights violations directed against supporters of Salvador Allende and opponents of the military regime.
The man behind the interfaith Comité Pro-Paz was Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez. Shortly after the coup, Silva, … stepped into the role of “upstander,”a term the author and activist Samantha Power coined to distinguish people who stand up to injustice—often at great personal risk—from “bystanders.”
… Soon after the coup, Silva and other church leaders published a declaration condemning and expressing sorrow for the bloodshed. This was a fundamental turning point for many members of the Chilean clergy… The cardinal visited the National Stadium and, shocked by the scale of the government crackdown, instructed his aides to begin collecting information from the thousands flocking to the church for refuge.
Had the Catholic hierarchy in Argentina and Jorge Mario Bergoglio taken a similar stance to that of Cardinal Raul Silva Henriquez, thousands of lives would have been saved.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not, in the words of Samantha Power, a “bystander”. Neither was Pope Francis I “a Man of the People” committed to “helping the poor” in the footsteps of Saint Francis of Assisi, as portrayed in chorus by the Western media mantra.
Quite the opposite: his endeavors under the military junta, consistently targeted progressive members of the Catholic clergy as well as committed human rights activists involved in grassroots anti-poverty programs.
In supporting Argentina’s “Dirty War”, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has blatantly violated the very tenets of Christian morality which cherish the value of human life.
“Operation Condor” and the Catholic Church
The election of Cardinal Bergoglio by the Vatican conclave to serve as Pope Francis I will have immediate repercussions regarding the ongoing “Operation Condor” Trial in Buenos Aires.
The Church was involved in supporting the military junta. This is something which will emerge in the course of the trial proceedings. No doubt, there will be attempts to obfuscate the role of the Catholic Hierarchy and the newly appointed Pope Francis I, who served as head of Argentina’s Jesuit order during the military dictatorship.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio: “Washington’s Pope in the Vatican”?
The election of Pope Francis I has broad geopolitical implications for the entire Latin American region.
In the 1970s, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was supportive of a US-sponsored military dictatorship.
The Catholic Hierarchy in Argentina supported the military government. The junta’s program of torture, assassinations and “disappearances” of thousands of political opponents was coordinated and supported by Washington under the CIA’s “Operation Condor.”
Wall Street’s interests were sustained through Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz’s office at the Ministry of Economy.
The Catholic Church in Latin America is politically influential. It also has a grip on public opinion. This is known and understood by the architects of US foreign policy as well as US intelligence.
In Latin America, where a number of governments are now challenging US hegemony, one would expect –given Bergoglio’s track record– that the new Pontiff Francis I as leader of the Catholic Church, will play de facto, a discrete “undercover” political role on behalf of Washington.
With Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis I in the Vatican –who faithfully served US interests in the heyday of General Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Massera— the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Latin America can once again be effectively manipulated to undermine “progressive” (Leftist) governments, not only in Argentina (in relation to the government of Cristina Kirschner) but throughout the entire region, including Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
The instatement of “a pro-US pope” occurred a week following the death of president Hugo Chavez.
“Regime Change” at the Vatican
The US State Department routinely pressures members of the United Nations Security Council with a view to influencing the vote pertaining to Security Council resolutions.
US covert operations and propaganda campaigns are routinely applied with a view to influencing national elections in different countries around the world.
Similarly, the CIA has a longstanding covert relationship with the Vatican.
Did the US government attempt to influence the outcome of the election of the new pontiff?
Firmly committed to serving US foreign policy interests in Latin America, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was Washington’s preferred candidate.
Were undercover pressures discretely exerted by Washington, within the Catholic Church, directly or indirectly, on the 115 cardinals who are members of the Vatican conclave?
Author’s Note
From the outset of the military regime in 1976, I was Visiting Professor at the Social Policy Institute of the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Argentina. My major research focus at the time was to investigate the social impacts of the deadly macroeconomic reforms adopted by the military junta.
I was teaching at the University of Cordoba (under an ILO contract) during the initial wave of assassinations which also targeted progressive grassroots members of the Catholic clergy. The junta had assigned Argentina’s Air Force to oversee and protect the Universidad Nacional.
The Northern industrial city of Cordoba was the center of the resistance movement. I witnessed how the Catholic Hierarchy actively and routinely supported the military junta, creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear throughout the country. The general feeling at the time was that Argentinians had been betrayed by the upper echelons of the Catholic Church.
Three years earlier, at the time of Chile’s September 11, 1973 military coup, leading to the overthrow of the Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende, I was Visiting Professor at the Institute of Economics, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago de Chile.
In the immediate wake of the coup in Chile, I witnessed how the Cardinal of Santiago, Raul Silva Henriquez –acting on behalf the people of Chile and the Catholic Church– courageously confronted the military dictatorship of general Augusto Pinochet.
Across campuses, mosques, and social platforms, a new generation is asking dangerous questions: Why must our foreign policy serve imperial interests? Why is our media allergic to speaking the truth about the occupation?
The generals in Islamabad—ever resplendent in starched uniforms and an exaggerated sense of self-importance—are once again casting furtive glances toward Tel Aviv. Their ambition? To inch closer to the sanctum of global approval, to gain access to the corridors of Zionist power and, perhaps, to be recognized as respectable players in an increasingly transactional world order. For a cadre so obsessed with “strategic depth,” their diplomatic trajectory often resembles not strategy but supplication.
This is not merely a matter of curiosity or engagement. It reflects a deeper pathology: a blend of opportunism, insecurity, and postcolonial mimicry that has long defined Pakistan’s military and bureaucratic elites. The push for normalization with Israel is not grounded in democratic deliberation or national interest. It is a top-down enterprise, cultivated in air-conditioned conference halls, Western think tank circuits, and discreet backchannel rendezvous in Gulf capitals—worlds apart from the lived experiences and moral sentiments of ordinary Pakistanis.
This infatuation isn’t new. It reached farcical proportions during 2019–2020, when parts of the Pakistani media—habitually lethargic in covering domestic injustice, poverty, or state repression—suddenly became animated in their praise of Israeli technology, agriculture, and “shared democratic values.” It felt as if some invisible editorial hand had descended from Mount Herzliya. The usual suspects—retired military officers, neoliberal commentators, and urbane NGO functionaries—rallied to declare normalization not only desirable but inevitable.
In the background, the Abraham Accords were being carefully choreographed by Washington and Tel Aviv, hailed as diplomatic breakthroughs while Arab autocracies were nudged, coaxed, or compelled into smiling photo ops. Yet the crown jewel—the real geostrategic trophy—was always Pakistan: nuclear-armed, Muslim-majority, and governed by elites perpetually craving Western validation.
Into this mix entered Pakistan’s national security establishment with its preferred toolkit: coercion, manipulation, and an increasingly liberal-friendly vocabulary. Selling normalization to a deeply pro-Palestinian public required more than realpolitik. It required a narrative facelift. Enter the urban liberal intelligentsia—those fluent in the language of global capital and moral relativism—tasked with rebranding capitulation as “pragmatism.” Dissent was recast not as a principled position, but as retrograde, anti-Semitic, or hostile to globalization.
This was more than disingenuous—it was insulting to public memory.
Because the Pakistani people had not forgotten. They had not forgotten Gaza, Jenin, or Sheikh Jarrah. They remembered the children buried under rubble, the olive groves torched by settlers, and the suffocating siege that has strangled Palestinian life for decades. No amount of cyber-startups or desalination plants can whitewash the realities of apartheid and occupation.
So when the state attempted to rebrand normalization as a path to modernity, the public called their bluff.
And, to the dismay of Rawalpindi’s brass, Prime Minister Imran Khan refused to play along. Despite being ushered into power with the quiet blessing of the military, Khan demonstrated rare autonomy on the question of Israel. He repeatedly and unequivocally rejected normalization, citing the occupation of Palestinian territories and the moral imperative to support the oppressed.
Khan may not have articulated a comprehensive critique of Zionism or Western imperial structures, but he recognized a red line when he saw one. Under his administration, Pakistan upheld a principled stance: there would be no recognition of Israel so long as Palestinians remained besieged and stateless. In an age of transactional diplomacy, such a position was not only rare—it was radical.
Unsurprisingly, it unsettled more than just Islamabad’s elite. It likely irked Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi—actors with whom Pakistan’s military leadership had been quietly exploring “realignment” and “shared interests.”
What followed bore the hallmarks of a political takedown. Khan was ousted, arrested, and prosecuted in a series of trials that many observers—domestic and international—have likened to kangaroo proceedings. He now languishes in a high-security prison, a facility usually reserved for violent offenders. The official narrative attributes his downfall to legal violations and political unrest. But to anyone reading between the lines, the specter of international pressure—especially from the Zionist-Western axis—is difficult to ignore.
Of course, this wasn’t the military’s first betrayal of the Palestinian cause. That dubious honor belongs to General Zia-ul-Haq, who in 1970 participated in the suppression of the Palestinian resistance during Black September in Jordan. Thousands were killed as Zia, then a relatively obscure officer, assisted the Hashemite monarchy in crushing the PLO. The man who later wrapped himself in the cloak of Islamization was once complicit in the massacre of fellow Muslims—at the behest of Arab autocrats.
That episode was not an anomaly; it was a precedent. Pakistan’s military elite long ago made a Faustian bargain: serve the interests of Gulf monarchs and Western patrons in exchange for dollars, prestige, and insulation from domestic accountability. In that calculus, Palestinian suffering has remained expendable.
Fast forward to the most recent Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit on Gaza. One might expect that, in the face of a live-streamed genocide, Pakistan would assert a position of moral clarity. Instead, Islamabad’s delegation treated the summit as if it were a technical seminar. Their standout achievement? Quietly lobbying to remove clauses that would have held Israeli officials accountable for war crimes. A low point, even by the standards of Pakistani diplomacy.
Israel took notice. Media reports from Tel Aviv celebrated Pakistan’s behind-the-scenes efforts. In a room filled with transactional politics, Islamabad appeared determined to outdo them all in moral equivocation.
Meanwhile, the Pakistani public was staging vigils, organizing fundraisers, and marching in solidarity with Palestine. From the streets of Karachi to the hills of Khyber, moral clarity was not only alive—it was surging. And from his prison cell, Imran Khan released a statement through his sister, calling on Muslim-majority nations—especially Pakistan and Turkey—to form protection forces for Gaza and the West Bank. He even proposed a no-fly zone over Gaza, echoing norms of international humanitarian law that the so-called “international community” rarely enforces.
This was not an isolated remark. Khan had made similar appeals before, but this time it resonated more deeply. Why? Because it aligned with a rising public sentiment: that the Pakistani military—rather than suppressing journalists, student unions, and political activists—might one day consider defending actual victims of oppression.
This divergence has now crystallized into a deeper national contradiction.
On one side stand the military, feudal elites, and their liberal apologists—those who see appeasing Tel Aviv and Washington as a strategic imperative. Their pundits dress up normalization in economic and modernist vocabulary, even as Israeli bombs level hospitals. Their intellectuals preach caution, even as children are buried under rubble.
On the other side stand the people: a population that, despite relentless propaganda, remains morally grounded. They reject apartheid. They oppose genocide. And increasingly, they demand action—not just symbolic gestures, but meaningful resistance.
Calls for a volunteer army to defend Palestine may sound utopian to some, but they reflect a growing disillusionment with Pakistan’s security establishment. The question is no longer why the military is silent on Gaza. It’s why it continues to serve everything but the public will—whether in foreign policy or at home.
Because this is not just about Palestine. It is about the soul of Pakistan’s foreign policy. Will it remain scripted in Western capitals and proofread in Tel Aviv? Or will it finally reflect the ethical compass of its own people?
The values at stake—justice, solidarity, dignity, resistance—are not abstract. They were part of Pakistan’s founding narrative, however inconsistently upheld. And for much of the public, they remain non-negotiable.
History will judge. And when it does, it will not be kind to those who stood idle—or complicit—as a genocide unfolded. The military may still dominate the national narrative, but narratives are slippery things. They seep through cracks, they circulate digitally, and they gather force.
Across campuses, mosques, and social platforms, a new generation is asking dangerous questions: Why must our foreign policy serve imperial interests? Why is our media allergic to speaking the truth about the occupation? And why does our military continue to protect elite privilege while the world burns?
The answers are uncomfortable. But they are necessary.
So let the generals continue their overtures to Zionist power. Let the elite dream of tech partnerships and direct flights to Ben-Gurion. But they should know this: the public is not with them. The people are watching. They are remembering. And they are no longer silent.
If that reality unsettles Rawalpindi, so be it. Accountability begins with discomfort. And Pakistan, at long last, may be inching toward both.
– Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan.
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 2025, pp. 62-63, 69
Special Report
By Dr. Swee Chai Ang
IN TWO YEARS, I will have spent half a century working as a surgeon for the National Health Service, following my arrival in the United Kingdom as a tiny woman refugee from South-East Asia. I’ve spent nearly as much time, forty-three years, as a doctor with the Palestinians, and they are still undergoing genocide and threatened with ethnic cleansing. In 1982, I returned from my first medical mission to Lebanon and co-founded Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP). I have not looked back since. Helping Palestinians and the British public has defined my career, but it was not an obvious path from my childhood.
I grew up supporting Israel, not knowing that the Palestinian people even existed; they were simply labelled as terrorists. This all changed when I volunteered as a surgeon to the wounded in Lebanon in 1982 with Christian Aid. I was seconded to work in Gaza Hospital in Shatila, a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut, adjacent to the Sabra neighborhood, during the ceasefire in August.
I spoke to my patients and their loved ones and learned of the ethnic cleansing of 50 percent of the indigenous Palestinians—750,000 persons in 1948. Until then, I had never heard of their Nakba, the catastrophe, during which 78 percent of historic Palestine became Israel and the indigenous population was forced to flee at gunpoint. I share the year of my birth with the Nakba, an entire lifetime without justice for Palestinian refugees.
Many of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians had fled to Shatila refugee camp, one of 12 in Lebanon, during the Nakba. When I met them, they had already been living as refugees for 34 years. In all that time, a third of a century, they had never been allowed to return to their homeland, even though they had a right to do so under international law.
In these camps, entire lives have been lived. They live as refugees, give birth to refugees and many die there as refugees. This third stage became crystal clear in September 1982, a month after I began volunteering there, when thousands of Palestinians were murdered in cold blood in the Sabra and Shatila massacre in a mere three days. I witnessed and survived that massacre with them.
I left Lebanon in November 1982 to give evidence to the Israeli Commission of Inquiry into the role of the Israeli army in Lebanon. I had gone to Lebanon as a surgeon to help patients, as any doctor would, but having seen what I’d seen, I could not stay silent about the sheer inhumanity and brutality of the killing by a pro-Israeli Lebanese Christian militia working under the control of the Israeli army. My eyes were opened in 1982, and everything I have lived through in the subsequent 43 years has only confirmed that realization.
On my return to the UK, I co-founded MAP, which celebrated its 40th anniversary last year. Since then, I have led many medical missions to Lebanon and Gaza. It is telling that MAP even needs to exist. How many other people across the world need a dedicated medical aid organization at all, let alone one that needs to keep running, decade after decade?
The latest onslaught on Gaza, described by the International Court of Justice as a “plausible” genocide, is just one of countless assaults on the Palestinian people. Exile, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, plausible genocide—these are the practices that stick with me, as it would stick with anyone who had spent decades returning over and over to the camps instead of simply hearing regurgitated and misleading narratives peddled in the media.
On exile and ethnic cleansing—seven million Palestinians live in wretched conditions in the 58 UNRWA Palestinian refugee camps scattered all over the Middle East, created in 1949 under the directive of the U.N. Security Council to mitigate the extreme suffering of the refugees of the Nakba. They have not been allowed to exercise their right of return to their homeland. In fact, 70 percent of those in Gaza are refugees from other parts of Palestine.
Since Oct. 8, 2023, Palestinians in Gaza have been ruthlessly murdered by relentless bombings. They were ordered to flee their homes and found themselves in makeshift tents, in the same way that their parents and grandparents were. They were displaced multiple times and bombed even as they fled, as were their homes, leaving them nothing to return to. Food, water, fuel and medicine were blockaded, acts that were described by Western leaders as Israel’s right of self-defense.
By Feb. 3, 2025—sixteen months into the genocide—more than 61,709 Gaza civilians were already confirmed killed. The true figures are much higher when factoring in indirect deaths and people buried beneath the rubble. Children were frozen to death in tents, infectious diseases became rampant, including polio, due to lack of sanitation; 35 out of 36 hospitals have been attacked; 2.1 million persons displaced; 35,055 children made orphans; 1,367 entire families removed from the civil registry; 1,047 health workers killed. The list goes on.
The world watched, breathless, when a fragile ceasefire was reached on Jan. 19, 2025. I watched with tears as half a million Gazans forcefully displaced to southern Gaza left their tents and walked back toward their homes demolished by bombs in northern Gaza. The roads were bulldozed and covered with rubble and debris. And yet, they had survived against the odds, after 15 months of drone attacks, large bombs, starvation and diseases, and they were determined to return to reclaim northern Gaza and to rebuild their lives.
For a short period, President Donald Trump was seen as the “hero” who forced a ceasefire, stopped the bombs and gave hope to the people whose lives were completely shattered. The genocide had stopped. Food trucks were allowed into northern Gaza.
Not quite yet.
Trump swiftly announced his ethnic cleansing plans to send 2 million Gazans into Egypt and Jordan to build the “Gaza Riviera.” This plan may lack shame in its explicitness, but it is by no means novel in its goal to dispossess Palestinians from their land. This has been ongoing since 1948.
And then there is apartheid. Once a word that was hotly contested, but after a slew of reports from basically every major human rights organization, it is now no longer questioned. Now that Israel has escalated its West Bank aggressions in its Operation Iron Wall, the reality of apartheid across the occupied Palestinian territory is once again in the spotlight.
Would refusal to be ethnically cleansed justify the resumption of genocide? What is there to say? Desperate Israeli apologists cling to whatever they can. Ignoring the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures, they point to the word “plausible,” as though this negates the following word: “genocide.” But that sort of spin doesn’t work on doctors like me who have journeyed for years with the Palestinians—it doesn’t matter how misleading media coverage is, there’s no way to spin the condition we’ve seen our patients in, the same wounds now as the ones I first saw in 1982.
And then there is the scale of destruction. All means for human life and survival have been destroyed: hospitals, schools, solar panels, water tanks, farms, orchards, factories as well as homes, all destroyed. And the cessation of bombs does not mean the cessation of aid blockades. Even now, Israel’s restriction of aid is still causing man-made famine, which not only kills by starvation, but also brings diseases to the emaciated bodies of starving Palestinians. All this makes genocidal apologism simply pathetic.
But despite all this, there is an unbreakable spirit. I saw it in Shatila in 1982 when destitute, homeless orphans defiantly raised their hands to make the victory sign in the face of death, and I see it now in Gaza and their friends.
Last year, I was in Lebanon operating on patients who were blown up by Israel’s pager attacks there. Several thousand civilians were injured when their pagers exploded. Their hands were mutilated; one or both eyes blown out; some had multiple shrapnel wounds across their torsos. Some had nasty brain and facial injuries. But despite the similarity of all these cases, one conversation stood out.
I told a patient with a mutilated hand how I felt sad for him. He replied: “Please do not feel sad doctor, I have no regrets suffering these injuries. This is the price I pay for standing with humanity and justice in Gaza.”
Almost 43 painful years have passed since the Sabra and Shatila massacre. But the spirit I saw then had been alive despite that horrific massacre, and it is still alive now. Despite everything, it lives on. The demolition site which Gaza is today will be rebuilt, olive trees replanted, and the laughter of children will be heard once more. A 77-year-old Gazan farmer was arrested and tortured for more than 40 days, his entire farm was demolished, and his animals killed. He has already started to clear the rubble, to replant 2,500 olive trees. The trees will outlive him and be there for his children and for Palestine—forever.
As leaders of America’s colleges, universities, and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education. We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.
America’s system of higher learning is as varied as the goals and dreams of the students it serves. It includes research universities and community colleges; comprehensive universities and liberal arts colleges; public institutions and private ones; freestanding and multi-site campuses. Some institutions are designed for all students, and others are dedicated to serving particular groups. Yet, American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom. Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.
Because of these freedoms, American institutions of higher learning are essential to American prosperity and serve as productive partners with government in promoting the common good. Colleges and universities are engines of opportunity and mobility, anchor institutions that contribute to economic and cultural vitality regionally and in our local communities. They foster creativity and innovation, provide human resources to meet the fast-changing demands of our dynamic workforce, and are themselves major employers. They nurture the scholarly pursuits that ensure America’s leadership in research, and many provide healthcare and other essential services. Most fundamentally, America’s colleges and universities prepare an educated citizenry to sustain our democracy.
The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society. On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic.
Signed,
Andrés Acebo, Interim President, New Jersey City University
Kenneth Adams, President, LaGuardia Community College
Kimo Ah Yun, President, Marquette University
Jonathan Alger, President, American University
Barbara K. Altmann, President, Franklin & Marshall College
Carmen Twillie Ambar, President, Oberlin College
Suzanne Ames, President, Peninsula College
Michelle J. Anderson, President, Brooklyn College
James J. Annarelli, President, Eckerd College
Michael D. Anthony, President, Prairie State College
Joseph E. Aoun, President, Northeastern University
Virginia “Ginny” Arthur, President, Metro State University
Roslyn Clark Artis, President, Benedict College
Cheryl Aschenbach, President, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
Valerie Sheares Ashby, President, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Michael Avaltroni, President, Fairleigh Dickinson University
Lynn Babington, President, Chaminade University of Honolulu
Thomas R. Bailey, President, Teachers College, Columbia University
Sanda Balaban, Executive Director, Project Pericles
Andrew W. Barnes, President, Pennsylvania College of Art and Design
Denise A. Battles, President, SUNY Geneseo
Ian Baucom, Incoming President, Middlebury College
Erika D. Beck, President, California State University, Northridge
Jeff Bellantoni, Interim President, Woodbury University
Allan Belton, President, Pacific Lutheran University
Hubert Benitez, President, Saint Peter’s University
Joanne Berger-Sweeney, President, Trinity College (CT)
Rebecca M. Bergman, President, Gustavus Adolphus College
Peter Berkery, Executive Director, Association of University Presses
Jay M. Bernhardt, President, Emerson College
Michael A. Bernstein, President, The College of New Jersey
Joe Bertolino, President, Stockton University
Audrey Bilger, President, Reed College
James Birge, President, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
Erik J. Bitterbaum, President, SUNY Cortland
Mary M. Black, Acting President, Millikin University
Robert E. Bohrer II, President, Hiram College
Sarah Bolton, President, Whitman College
Mary H. Bonderoff, President, SUNY Delhi
MJ Bosia, Executive Director, International Studies Association
Leon Botstein, President, Bard College
Eric Boynton, President, Beloit College
Vincent Boudreau, President, The City College of the City University of New York
Lola W. Brabham, President, The Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities
Corey Bradford, Interim President, Governors State University
Elizabeth H. Bradley, President, Vassar College
John C. Bravman, President, Bucknell University
Frances Bronet, President, Pratt Institute
Brian Bruess, President, College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University
Joshua C. Brumberg, President, The Graduate Center, CUNY
Stephanie Bulger, President, Lane Community College
Andrew Burton-Jones, President, Association for Information Systems (AIS)
Adam Bush, President, College Unbound
Alison Byerly, President, Carleton College
Dara N. Byrne, Dean, Macaulay Honors College
Wendy Cadge, President and Professor of Sociology, Bryn Mawr College
Stephen Cady, President, Brite Divinity School
Christopher Callahan, President, University of the Pacific
Nancy Cantor, President, Hunter College CUNY
Alberto Jose Cardelle, President, SUNY Oneonta
Seamus Carey, President, Iona University
John Carmichael, President, The Evergreen State College
Laurie A. Carter, President, Lawrence University
Brian W. Casey, President, Colgate University
Sandra Cassady, President, Rockhurst University
Ana Mari Cauce, Professor and President, University of Washington
Andrea Chapdelaine, President, Connecticut College
Julie Chen, Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Lowell
Thom D. Chesney, President, Southwestern College (NM)
Sonya Christian, Chancellor, California Community Colleges
E. LaBrent Chrite, President, Bentley University
Christina Clark, President, La Roche University
Frederick W. Clark, President, Bridgewater State University
Daisy Cocco De Filippis, President, Hostos Community College/CUNY
Bryan F. Coker, President, Maryville College
Ronald B. Cole, President, Allegheny College
Soraya Coley, President, Cal Poly Pomona
Jennifer Collins, President, Rhodes College
Michael F. Collins, Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School
John Comerford, President, Otterbein University
Katie Conboy, President, Saint Mary’s College (IN)
Marc C. Conner, President, Skidmore College
Joy Connolly, President, American Council of Learned Societies
Jane C. Conoley, President, California State University, Long Beach
Robert A. Coons, President, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Melanie Corn, President, Columbus College of Art & Design
Eugene J. Cornacchia, Interim President, Georgian Court University
John L. Cox, President, Cape Cod Community College
La Jerne Terry Cornish, President, Ithaca College
Grant Cornwell, President, Rollins College
Jennifer Coyle, President, Pacific University
Isiaah Crawford, President, University of Puget Sound
Ann E. Cudd, President, Portland State University
Lindsay Currie, CEO, Council on Undergraduate Research
Emily F. Cutrer, Interim President, Sonoma State University
James M. Danko, President, Butler University
Camille Davidson, President and Dean, Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Janine Davidson, President, Metropolitan State University of Denver
Lisa Fagin Davis, Executive Director, Medieval Academy of America
Fernando Delgado, President, Lehman College
Gregory G. Dell’Omo, President, Rider University
Nora Demleitner, President, St. John’s College
Rev. John F. Denning, C.S.C., President, Stonehill College
Kent Devereaux, President, Goucher College
Mantosh Dewan, President, SUNY Upstate Medical University
Risa Dickson, President, University of La Verne
Jim Dlugos, Interim President, Landmark College
Bethami Dobkin, President, Westminster University
Peter Donohue, OSA, President, Villanova University
Susan M. Donovan, President, Bellarmine University
Tawny Dotson, President, Yuba College
Rev. Robert A. Dowd, C.S.C., President, University of Notre Dame
Michael V. Drake, President, University of California System
Suri Duitch, President, Kingsborough Community College
Harry Dumay, President, Elms College
Bonita R. Durand, Interim President, Buffalo State University SUNY
Raj Echambadi, President, Illinois Institute of Technology
Pam Eddinger, President, Bunker Hill Community College
Melanie Ehrlich, President, Epigenetics Society
Christopher L. Eisgruber, President, Princeton University
Michael A. Elliott, President, Amherst College
Margee Ensign, President, The American University in Bulgaria
Alexander Enyedi, President, SUNY Plattsburgh
Kristin G. Esterberg, Chancellor, University of Washington Bothell
Arthur C. Evans, Jr., Chief Executive Officer/Executive Vice President, American Psychological Association
Marcheta P. Evans, President, St. Catherine University
Joseph A. Favazza, President, Saint Anselm College
Jane Fernandes, President, Antioch College
Roland Fernandes, General Secretary, General Board of Higher Education and Ministry
Damian J. Fernandez, President, Warren Wilson College
Amy Ferrer, Executive Director, American Philosophical Association
David Fike, President, Golden Gate University
David Fithian, President, Clark University
John P. Fitzgibbons, S.J., Interim President, University of San Francisco
Victoria N. Folse, President, Ripon College
Michael L. Frandsen, President, Wittenberg University
Jeff Frederick, President, Drury University
Lisa C. Freeman, President, Northern Illinois University
Julio Frenk, Chancellor, UCLA
Ryan Frisinger, Executive Director, International Center of Medieval Art
John Fry, President, Temple University
Montserrat Fuentes, President, St. Edward’s University
Mark A. Fuller, Chancellor, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Robert Gaines, Acting President, Pomona College
Lawrence Galizio, President and CEO, Community College League of California
James Gandre, President, Manhattan School of Music
Rev. Michael Garanzini, S.J., President, Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Alan M. Garber, President, Harvard University
Jay D. Gatrell, President, Eastern Illinois University
Uttam Gaulee, President, STAR Scholars Network
Michael H. Gavin, President, Delta College
Mark D. Gearan, President, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Robert Gervasi, President, Mount Saint Mary College
Melissa Gilliam, President, Boston University
Howard Gillman, Chancellor, University of California, Irvine
Jeff Gingerich, President, St. Bonaventure University
Mark R. Ginsberg, President, Towson University
Lane A. Glenn, President, Northern Essex Community College
Cindy Gnadinger, President, Carroll University
Carole Goldsmith, Chancellor, State Center Community College District
Jorge G. Gonzalez, President, Kalamazoo College
Janet L. Gooch, Chancellor, University of Illinois Springfield
Ellen M. Granberg, President, The George Washington University
Mary K. Grant, President, Massachusetts College of Art and Design
Domenico Grasso, Chancellor, University of Michigan-Dearborn
Jonathan D. Green, President, Susquehanna University
David A. Greene, President, Colby College
James J. Greenfield, OSFS, President, DeSales University
Kate Griffin, Executive Director, American Studies Association
James Grossman, Executive Director, American Historical Association
Robert M. Groves, Interim President, Georgetown University
William R. Groves, Chancellor, Antioch University
Jeremy Haefner, Chancellor, University of Denver
Grant Hagiya, President, Claremont School of Theology
Kevin F. Hallock, President, University of Richmond
Merodie Hancock, President, Thomas Edison State University
Robyn Hannigan, President, Ursinus College
Yoshiko Harden, President, Renton Technical College
David Harker, Executive Director, Partners for Campus-Community Engagement (PCCE)
Kathleen E. Harring, President, Muhlenberg College
Anne F. Harris, President, Grinnell College
David Harris, President, Union College
James T. Harris, President, University of San Diego
Marjorie Hass, President, Council of Independent Colleges
Susan Hasseler, President, Muskingum University
Sam Hawgood, Chancellor, University of California San Francisco
Antoinette Hays, President, Regis College
Chris Heavey, Interim President, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Peggy Heinrich, President, Elgin Community College
Richard J. Helldobler, President, William Paterson University
Daniel S. Hendrickson, S.J., President, Creighton University
Wendy Hensel, President, University of Hawaii
James Herbert, President, University of New England
Alejandro (Alex) Hernandez, President, Champlain College
Chad Hickox, President, Walla Walla Community College
Doug Hicks, President, Davidson College
Mary Dana Hinton, President, Hollins University
Donna Hodge, President, Fitchburg State University
John L. Hoffman, President, Bemidji State University and Northwest Technical College
Danielle R. Holley, President, Mount Holyoke College
Jonathan Holloway, President, Rutgers University
Robin Holmes-Sullivan, President, Lewis & Clark College
Ali A. Houshmand, President, Rowan University
Jessica Howard, President/CEO, Chemeketa Community College
David C. Howse, President, California College of the Arts
Lily S. Hsu, President, Laboure College of Healthcare
Robert H. Huntington, President, Heidelberg University
Nicole Hurd, President, Lafayette College
Elaine Ikeda, Executive Director, LEAD California
Colin Irvine, President, Concordia College
Wolde-Ab Isaac, Chancellor, Riverside Community College District
Jiseon Lee Isbara, President, School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Karim Ismaili, President, Eastern Connecticut State University
Farnam Jahanian, President, Carnegie Mellon University
J. Larry Jameson, President, University of Pennsylvania
Bruce Jarrell, President, University of Maryland, Baltimore
Paul E. Jarrell, President and CEO, Tillamook Bay Community College
Lisa Jasinski, President, Associated Colleges of the Midwest
Julia Jasken, President, McDaniel College
Jonathan Jefferson, President, Roxbury Community College
Anthony L. Jenkins, President, Coppin State University
Garry W. Jenkins, President, Bates College
Arvid C. Johnson, President, University of St. Francis
Larry D. Johnson, Jr., President, Stella & Charles Guttman Community College
Paula A. Johnson, President, Wellesley College
Rebecca Johnson, Interim President, Linfield University
Suzanne M. Johnson, President, Green River College
John E. Jones III, President, Dickinson College
Robert J. Jones, Chancellor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Katrina Bell Jordan, President, Northeastern Illinois University
Tuajuanda C. Jordan, President, St. Mary’s College of Maryland
Cristle Collins Judd, President, Sarah Lawrence College
David L. Kaufman, President, Capital University
Colleen Perry Keith, President, Goldey-Beacom College
Marisa Kelly, President, Suffolk University
Robert D. Kelly, President, University of Portland
Pradeep K. Khosla, Chancellor, University of California San Diego
Julie Johnson Kidd, President, Endeavor Foundation
Timothy Killeen, President, University of Illinois System
Walter M. Kimbrough, Interim President, Talladega College
John B. King Jr., Chancellor, State University of New York (SUNY)
Emily Kirkpatrick, Executive Director and CEO, National Council of Teachers of English
Heather Kirkpatrick, President & CEO, Alder Graduate School of Education
Erica Kohl-Arenas, Faculty Director, Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life
Jonathan Koppell, President, Montclair State University
Sally Kornbluth, President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Julie Kornfeld, President, Kenyon College
Michael I. Kotlikoff, President, Cornell University
Paula Krebs, Executive Director, Modern Language Association
Robert D. Krebs, Interim President, Lake Forest College
Marvin Krislov, President, Pace University
Sunil Kumar, President, Tufts University
Susan Lamb, President, Diablo Valley College
Lee D. Lambert, Chancellor, Foothill-De Anza Community College District
Sheila Edwards Lange, Chancellor, University of Washington Tacoma
Cynthia Larive, Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz
Bobbie Laur, President, Campus Compact
Frederick M. Lawrence, Secretary and CEO, Phi Beta Kappa Society
William P. Leahy, SJ, President, Boston College
Linda M. LeMura, President, Le Moyne College
James P. Lentini, President, Molloy University
Richard J. Lessard, President, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Bethany Letiecq, President, National Council on Family Relations
Arthur Levine, Interim President, Brandeis University
Charles G. Lief, President, Naropa University
Richard P. Lifton, President, The Rockefeller University
Teik Lim, President, New Jersey Institute of Technology
James M. Limbaugh, President, West Los Angeles College
Charles W. Lindsay, President, Elmira College
Hilary L. Link, President, Drew University
Lisa A. Lori, President, Marywood University
Jim Lucchese, President, Berklee College of Music
Timothy G. Lynch, President, College of Staten Island, CUNY
Patricia A. Lynott, President, Rockford University
Richard Lyons, Chancellor, University of California Berkeley
Heidi Macpherson, President, SUNY Brockport
John Maduko, President, Connecticut State Community College
Joanne Mahoney, President, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
Lynn Mahoney, President, San Francisco State University
Daniel Mahony, President, Southern Illinois University
Barry M. Maloney, President, Worcester State University
Maud S. Mandel, President, Williams College
Sarah C. Mangelsdorf, President, University of Rochester
Christine Mangino, President, Queensborough Community College
Andrew P. Manion, President, Edgewood College
Amy Marcus-Newhall, President, Scripps College
Joseph Marina, SJ, President, The University of Scranton
Earl F. Martin III, President, Drake University
Lizbeth Martin, President, Notre Dame de Namur University
Karol Mason, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Felix V. Matos-Rodriguez, Chancellor, City University of New York (CUNY)
David May, President, Bellevue College
Gary S. May, Chancellor, University of California, Davis
Anne E. McCall, President, The College of Wooster
Cheryl McConnell, President, Saint Joseph’s University
Mark McCormick, President, Middlesex College
Richard L. McCormick, Interim President, Stony Brook University
Thayne M. McCulloh, President, Gonzaga University
Barbara McDonald, President, The College of St. Scholastica
Michael McDonald, President, Great Lakes Colleges Association
Cecilia M. McCormick, President, Maryland Institute College of Art
Lester McCorn, President, Paine College
C. Andrew McGadney, President, Knox College
James McGrath, President and Dean, Cooley Law School
Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington University
Maurie McInnis, President, Yale University
Steve McLaughlin, Incoming President, The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
Shari McMahan, President, Eastern Washington University
Elizabeth M. Meade, President, Cedar Crest College
Marty Meehan, President, University of Massachusetts
Mojdeh Mehdizadeh, Chancellor, Contra Costa Community College District
John Meier, CEO, American Mathematical Society
Mildred A. Mihlon, President, Felician University
Scott D. Miller, President, Virginia Wesleyan University
Kristi S. Mindrup, President, Western Illinois University
Marie Lynn Miranda, Chancellor, University of Illinois Chicago
Jennifer Mnookin, Chancellor, University of Wisconsin–Madison
Robert Mohrbacher, President, Centralia College
Chris Moody, Executive Director, ACPA-College Student Educators International
Tomas Morales, President, California State University San Bernardino
Milton Moreland, President, Centre College
Barbara Jean Morris, President, Prescott College
Kathryn Morris, President, St. Lawrence University
John R. Mosby, President, Highline College
Ross Mugler, Board Chair and Acting President and CEO, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges
Juan S. Munoz, Chancellor, University of California Merced\
David C. Munson Jr., President, Rochester Institute of Technology
Anthony E. Munroe, President, Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY
Eric Murray, President, Cascadia College
Kathleen Murray, Acting/Interim President, Hamline University
Daniel J. Myers, President, Misericordia University
Lizette Navarette, President, Woodland Community College
Harriet B. Nembhard, President, Harvey Mudd College
Frank Neville, President, Millsaps College
Krista L. Newkirk, President, University of Redlands
Ellen Neufeldt, President, California State University San Marcos
Nancy S. Niemi, President, Framingham State University
Stefanie D. Niles, President, Cottey College
Cheryl L. Nixon, President, Berea College
Lara Q. Noah, President, Association of College Honor Societies
Peter O. Nwosu, President, State University of New York (SUNY), Oswego
Deborah Obalil, President and Executive Director, Association of Independent Colleges of Art & Design
Maureen O’Connor, President, Palo Alto University
Judy Olian, President, Quinnipiac University
Claire Oliveros, President, Riverside City College
Meme Omogbai, Executive Director and CEO, College Art Association of America
Santa J. Ono, President, University of Michigan
Kirk Ormand, President, Society for Classical Studies
Douglas B. Palmer, President, Siena Heights University
Thomas A. Parham, President, California State University-Dominguez Hills
Micaela S. Parker, Founder and Executive Director, Academic Data Science Alliance
Robyn Parker, Interim President, Saybrook University
Marc Parlange, President, University of Rhode Island
Amy Parsons, President, Colorado State University
Lynn Pasquerella, President, American Association of Colleges and Universities
Laurie L. Patton, President, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Beth Paul, President, Nazareth University
Christina Paxson, President, Brown University
Rob Pearigen, Vice-Chancellor and President, University of the South
J. Michael Pearson, Executive Director, Mathematical Association of America
Sheahon Zenger, President, Illinois Wesleyan University
Andy Zink, President, Deep Springs College
Mark Zupan, President, Alfred University
We continue to accept signatures from current leaders of colleges, universities, and scholarly societies. Last updated at 10:00 a.m. ET on April 28, 2025. Currently, there are 523 signatures.
As reported by various national and international newspapers that during a horrendous and shocking attack on foreign tourists in Pahalgam (Kashmir) on Tuesday April 22, 2025, more than two dozen innocent people, including women were killed. Pahalgam is one of the most scenic tourist places in Kashmir. These attacks are condemnable, no matter who commits them. Terrorism must be condemned in all its shades and manifestations. Terrorism must have no place in any civilized society. A life that indulges in terrorism is not worth living. That must be the shinning creed of today, tomorrow and forever. Can anyone think of anything more ennobling?
Unfortunately, Kashmir has a tragic history of such terrorist attacks. Take the case of the 35 Sikhs who were murdered at Chattisinghpora in Indian occupied Kashmir on March 20, 2000, during the visit of President Bill Clinton to India. Those innocent Sikh victims had done no harm to anyone, had not colluded with anybody. Indeed, Chattisinghpora Sikh massacre was thus unmitigated evil and an earmark of barbarism contemptuous of civilization.
Congressman Edolphus Towns of New York spoke at the United States Congress on June 6, 2006. One can read his whole speech via Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8] [Page 10183].[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
I quote part of his speech here. He said, “Mr. Speaker, recently, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrote a book called The Mighty and the Almighty. The introduction was written by former President Bill Clinton. In his introduction, President Clinton wrote, “During my visit to India in 2000, some Hindu militants decided to vent their outrage by murdering 38 Sikhs in cold blood. If I hadn’t made the trip, the victims would probably still be alive. If I hadn’t made the trip because I feared what militants might do, I couldn’t have done my job as president of the United States.”
It is also worth noting that Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) has been spreading rumors all along and as early as in 1992 that as many as 40 Hindu temples have been destroyed in Kashmir by Muslims. It is simply not true. Consider this brief excerpt from the February 28, 1993, issue of New Delhi-based ‘India Today’. “The evidence that the temples were not demolished or desecrated by the Muslims as claimed by the BJP, but in riot-like situations by bomb and rocket attacks. That is why the figure includes both temples and mosques. If temples were to be singled out, they could easily have been attacked in village after village. In many places such as Lukh bhawan in Anantnag, it is the Muslim who feed the fish in the pond around which stand three temples.”
As a Kashmiri American who comes from an area which is just 30 miles away from Pahalgam, I feel proud to say that Kashmir has a history of tolerance and amity between different religious communities. It has a tradition of moderation and non-violence. Its culture does not generate extremism. Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims in Kashmir have lived fraternally for centuries. No one can deny the fact – of no small significance – that while the Subcontinent under British rule was and India is now, the scene of recurrent murderous strife, communal riots were unheard of in Kashmir? That unquestionable fact brings out the real character of Kashmir’s heritage. And it was none other than Mahatma Gandhi who said in August 1947 during his visit to Kashmir, “It is really difficult for me to distinguish between a Hindu Kashmiri and a Muslim Kashmiri. You people speak one language and have one culture. While the rest of the country burns in communal fire, I see a ray of hope in Kashmir only…”
Therefore, we demand that the Government of India must permit an independent, impartial and international agency, more preferably the United Nations, to investigate these terrorist attacks in Pahalgam, in identifying, apprehending and punishing the culprits.
Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
Chairman
World Forum for Peace and Justice
April 22, 2025
For more information please contact,
Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Chairman, World Forum for Peace & Justice.
Mike Whitney (MW): What are Trump’s tariffs on China supposed to achieve, and will they succeed?
Hua Bin (HB): I don’t think Trump has a clear idea himself because many of the supposed goals are contradictory and historically he is a shoot-from-the-hip type guy – no deep thinking, always swinging, and never ashamed of his own blatant lies.
That said, he has referred to several objectives:
Tariffs as a revenue source to offset his intended tax cuts for the donor class
Using tariffs to reshore manufacturing and reindustrialize
Tariffs as a way to embargo trade with China
Tariffs as a negotiation tool to get concessions from trading partners (to buy more US goods, invest in the US, buy 100-year interest free US Treasuries, purchase US weapons, etc.)
In Trump’s mind, numbers 2, 3 and 4 are all linked to China. China is the main perpetrator of manufacturing job-loss in the US. So, reindustrialization is largely about bringing jobs back from China. Imposing trade sanctions on China—even a full embargo—has long been in the cards as part of the decoupling of the two economies and preparation for an eventual military conflict. In fact, both sides want to reduce or eliminate dependencies on each other, although Trump is much less patient and strategic.
Lastly, I have no doubt that the concessions Trump wants from other trading partners are aimed at reducing their economic ties with China. The goal is to isolate China economically (as explicitly articulated by Bessent and Lutnick). This is essentially what the West did to Russia after the Ukraine war broke out, but Trump is ready to push the schedule ahead on China in the absence of a more credible pretext.
Trump may think he is playing 3D chess, but his plan has not been well-thought out, which is obvious now that China has refused to back down. After stocks, bonds and the Dollar went into free fall, he panicked and rolled back part of his program, which is a clear sign of poor preparation and faulty assumptions. Of course, he didn’t hesitate to help his family and friends profit from the market turmoil through insider trading (similar to the way Hunter Biden used his father’s influence for self-enrichment).
Other indications that his tariff strategy is half-baked, include the laughable math behind the “reciprocal” tariff calculation and the many contradictions of what he was trying to accomplish. For example, why did he choose to humiliate the trading partners who came to negotiate (Trump says, “Kiss my ass”)? If he was serious about enlisting their help to embargo China, how did he expect them to do that without inputs from the largest manufacturing power in the world (China) who controls many of the critical supply chains?
Personally, I would have fired anyone who presented me with such a poorly thought-out business plan. But the US is now a state that is ruled by one man alone, so there’s no accountability and Trump can do whatever he wants.
China Foreign Minister Wang Yi: “We will uphold the basic rules of free trade. We will not bow to power politics or bullying“ video (2 minutes)
.MW: Which country will be hurt more by the tariffs: US or China?
HB: As China has repeatedly said, there are no winners in a trade war. But in the absence of a negotiated settlement, China will likely suffer more short-term pain from loss of the US consumer market. This is going to impact GDP and employment. Clearly, the country needs to stimulate more domestic consumption, which is now more urgent than ever. It also needs to redirect some trade to other countries. There could be deflationary pressures domestically, but China has plenty of ways to fiscally stimulate consumption to mitigate the impact, especially since the state controls the flow of credit via state-owned banks. Longer term, the current trade war will likely pave the way for a complete decoupling between the world’s two economic superpowers (similar to the separation between Russia and the West).
On the US side, the short-term impact means the loss of the Chinese market for its agricultural and energy products (which represent 70% of Chinese imports from the US). Inflation is inevitable. There will be shortages of certain goods for consumers, businesses, and for many US manufacturers that rely on imported parts, components and critical minerals from China for their production (such as machine tools, rare earth, battery, and active pharmaceutical ingredients). The main thing to remember is that China sits at the very top of the global supply chain whereas, the US is at the bottom. So, any disruptions to the supply chain will cascade downward amplifying the damage to the US economy.
Given China’s pole position in many high-tech manufacturing supply chains, these impacts are likely to become long term problems. US businesses will need to invest more in CAPEX to strengthen domestic supply chains, factories, and skilled labor, etc, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, these new American industries will face stiff competition in international markets and are unlikely to be profitable for quite some time. Also, there aren’t many corporate executives who will want to invest the capital required to reindustrialize without explicit assurances from the government that their investment will be protected (Trump’s flip-flop on these matters is certainly no help).
In my opinion, the US will find the transition (back to a “country that produces things”) extremely painful and, perhaps, impossible. I suspect that’s why China is taking a hard line and made it clear that it will fight to the end if the US insists on imposing an unfair deal. In short, Trump has no cards vis-a-vis China.
MW: In your opinion, should Trump seek greater economic integration with China or continue along the current path of economic isolation, sanctions and conflict?
HB: There’s no doubt that economic cooperation is mutually beneficial and, frankly, the US could use China’s help to reindustrialize if that is the real goal. And the two economies are complimentary in many ways. The US actually runs a multi-billion surplus with China in services although the Trump regime chose to focus entirely on the trading of merchandise where it runs a structural deficit with most of the world. (Note—In 2024, the U.S. trade deficit with China was approximately $295 billion for goods alone, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When including both goods and services, the deficit was around $263 billion, as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.) The US exports far more tech, IP, financial services, business services, education, and tourism to China than the other way around. The two economies have many synergies. However, given the current US political consensus to treat China as the new bogeyman, any compromise is highly unlikely. And, even if a deal is struck, I don’t think there’s enough trust on either side to sustain an agreement for very long.
So, an economic and trade divorce is a high-probability outcome, if not immediately, then in the next three to five years. The world is likely to bifurcate into two camps with most nations trying to find a balance between China and the US.
In the long run, I believe that China has the more dynamic of the two economies and will emerge from the current trade war triumphant. In contrast, the US will find it much harder to muddle through while trying to manage plunging markets, a steadily weakening currency, and an ocean of red ink. Of course, the worst option for the United States would be a direct military confrontation with China. As I have explained in earlier articles, the US would undoubtedly lose a war with China which would greatly accelerate the pace of America’s decline. If that were to happen, the post-war international order would be kaput.
*
Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
Some of you might know that the BMA cancelled me as opening keynote speaker for the BMA Medical Student Leaders annual meeting on 4 April 2025. This cancellation was accompanied by a smear campaign against me, in which they justified their actions by rehashing my accidentally watching an antisemitic video more than 10 years ago. This has now spilled over to the Telegraph publishing a toxic article last week defaming Medical Aid for Palestinians by innuendo.
Of course, the real elephant in the room is my over four decades of wholehearted support for the Palestinians, and I am not going to stop, come what may.
Please read the letter written on my behalf by CAMPAIGN (the Campaign against Misrepresentation in Public Affairs, Information and the News), that spells out clearly what this is all about.
Please open the link below and sign the letter to show your support against silencing me and so many other people who speak up against the historic and ongoing injustice and cruelty against the Palestinians. The genocide and impending ethnic cleansing in Gaza, the apartheid in the West Bank and the exile of 7 million Palestinian refugees for 77 years can only happen by silencing voices who speak up for them and humanise them. The first step to genocide is dehumanisation. Those accusing me of antisemitism and linking me with the Ku Klux Clan know full well I am neither!
Every signature sends a message to the Palestinians that we are with them on their painful journey and our support is unwavering. Every signature also sends a message to the silencing machinery that we defy them and will speak up against injustice and misrepresentation.
Thank you and with very best wishes
Swee Ang, Honorary Patron and Co-Founder of Medical Aid for Palestinians
