Categories
Uncategorized

No to a US war on Venezuela!

By Tim Young (Venezuela Solidarity Campaign – Britain)

For the past few weeks the Trump administration has intensified its long-standing aggression against Venezuela by deploying warships (including a nuclear submarine) in the Caribbean Sea in a purported anti-narcotics operation. US forces have carried out at least five incidents of strikes on boats in Venezuelan waters to date, killing 37 people. Trump’s latest move has been to authorise the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela.

President Nicolas Maduro, as Venezuela’s current leader, has been a focus of this ‘war on drugs’ narrative, justifying the US’s illegal actions by demonising him as a ‘narco-terrorist’ engaged in drug trafficking, despite UN evidence to the contrary. The US also portrays him as being an illegitimate leader, offering a bounty of $50 million for his capture.

But overthrowing the Bolivarian Revolution has been a project of US imperialism ever since Huge Chávez became President in 1999 and set about transforming the country through a series of far-reaching measures including healthcare, education, land redistribution and anti-poverty programmes.

Key to these revolutionary changes was, and still is, the massive wealth in oil reserves that Venezuela has – the largest in the world – and the revenues generated from them. Chávez’s massive programme of wealth redistribution redirected these oil revenues to collective social purposes rather than funding the opulent lifestyle of Venezuela’s elites.

Additionally, to help realise his vision that “another world is possible”, not just for Venezuela, Chávez also envisaged (and ultimately helped create) key regional organisations to unite Latin American voices and provide progressive economic alternatives to neo-liberalism.

Aghast at what this represented, both politically and economically, the US has ever since then, in concert with the extreme right-wing elites in Venezuela, sought to destabilise the country and effect ‘regime change’.

In 2002, a US-backed military coup temporarily ousted Chávez before a spontaneous popular uprising restored him to the presidency. Other US tactics to destabilise the country have included massive funding of opposition groups to try –unsuccessfully – to win elections, coupled with disinformation campaigns to isolate the country, campaigns of violence on the streets, further coup attempts and domestic sabotage.

But the most powerful US weapon against Venezuela has been an increasingly severe set of economic sanctions, illegal under international law, designed to destroy the economy and bring the country to its knees.

The US sanctions, first introduced by Obama in 2015 and ramped up by Trump in his first presidency into a crippling economic, trade and financial blockade, led to a 99% fall in oil revenues and well over a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths.

Complementing this, Trump has at various times threatened military action against Venezuela. He also backed minor politician Juan Guaidό’s attempt to bring about ‘regime change’ by declaring himself ’interim president’ in 2019. But despite lavish bankrolling of his activities, including insurrectionary adventures, with confiscated Venezuelan assets, this attempt at ‘regime change’ fizzled out when the right-wing Venezuelan opposition ditched Guaidó in December 2022.

Throughout and to this day, the British government has supported the US’s policy, even levying its own sanctions and withholding 31 tons of Venezuelan gold worth roughly $2 billion lodged in the Bank of England’s vaults.

Despite all this, the Venezuelan economy has survived – even growing by between 5 to 6% in 2024 – though at the cost of great hardship for millions of ordinary Venezuelans.

But the political and economic dynamics motivating this drive by US imperialism to secure ‘regime change’ have not lessened.

Politically, Venezuela’s commitment to Latin American independence and resistance to neo-liberalism are anathema to the US’s historic and continuing commitment to the Monroe Doctrine. Recent progressive left electoral successes in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, Brazil and Uruguay, for example, are seen by the US government as a challenge to its dominance.

Economically, Venezuela is a rich country with vast mineral reserves, but the prize is its oil. In 2023 Trump himself publicly admitted that he wanted to overthrow Maduro to secure control over Venezuela’s oil, mirroring the way he boasted in 2020 that he was militarily occupying Syria’s crude oil-rich regions in order to “take the oil”.

The overthrow of the Bolivarian Revolution would enable the US to control Venezuela’s oil and help sustain the US’s faltering economy, as well as shore up the rhetoric of Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda.

But Trump is being challenged domestically, in the media and Congress. Although Congressional Democrats have long supported sanctions against Venezuela, their Senate resolution requiring Trump to seek Congressional authorisation before any further military strikes purportedly aimed at drug cartels was defeated 48-51 (with two Republicans in favour and one Democrat against).

Opposition in Latin America and the Caribbean is much more forthright. The region is clear about the enormous implications if the US were to be successful in securing ‘regime change’, especially for the future of blockaded Cuba, which has been in US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s sights for longer than Venezuela, and for heavily-sanctioned Nicaragua. Trump has also been making very similar threats against President Petro’s government in Colombia, calling openly for ‘regime change’.

Encapsulating these concerns, the ALBA bloc of countries issued a statement strongly condemning the US’s actions: “These manoeuvres not only constitute a direct attack on the independence of Venezuela, but also a threat to the stability and self-determination of all the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean (…) We categorically reject the orders from the United States government to deploy military forces under false pretexts, with the clear intention of imposing illegal, interventionist policies that are contrary to the constitutional order of the States of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (VSC) has launched a petition urging governments and political actors internationally to join in opposing military intervention and all threats to peace in the region.

The British government has disgracefully failed to join the criticism being voiced in Latin America and the US of Trump’s illegal actions, committing only to “fighting the scourge of drugs…accordance with the fundamental principles of the UN Charter”.

A linked letter to Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper is therefore urging them to join the international effort against military intervention and in support of peace.

VSC will be joining with forces across the British labour, peace and solidarity movements to express maximum opposition to US military aggression in the weeks and months ahead.

The above article was originally published here by the British – Stop the War Coalition.

Categories
Uncategorized

APEC 2025: People are taking action against it

The 2025 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Leaders’ Meeting is taking place in South Korea, on Friday 31 October and Saturday 1 November.

APEC is an inter-governmental forum for 21 member economies in the Pacific Rim. It pursues a liberalising agenda, centred around the interests of multinational corporations, so inevitably dominated by Global North countries, in particular the United States.

With Trump’s imposition of tariffs having a huge impact across the world, there is so much that ought to be discussed at the meeting. But it is unlikely Trump will be confronted about the damage US economic policy is inflicting on other countries.

An International People’s Summit against APEC 2025, will also be taking place in South Korea, which will discuss these important issues.

In this short video, Anlin Wang interviews Dae-Han Song from South Korea, who explains the role that APEC plays and sets out an alternative progressive agenda that needs to be addressed.

Dae-Han Song is a part of the International Strategy Center and the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the international No Cold War collective.

Anlin Wang has been organizing with the Democratic Socialists of America since 2018 and served on the International Committee since 2019, where he currently leads their China Working Group and serves as a liaison to No Cold War. Anlin is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and remains active in local organizing, where he has served on leadership of peoples’ movement organizations, worked as an organizer for progressive candidates seeking office, and acted as DSA liaison to events and movements in the region.

No Cold War Perspectives #20 Video

Categories
Uncategorized

We oppose APEC – We oppose Trump – And, we want an economy for all

The Organizing Committee for the International People’s Response Against APEC 2025 (“Organizing Committee”) will convene an International People’s Summit (“Summit”) in opposition to APEC 2025 Korea and Trump’s predatory neoliberalism.

The APEC Summit has completely excluded public participation from all its meetings including the CEO Summit and Leaders’ Meeting. The agendas discussed in APEC meetings have profound implications for people across the globe. At this moment, we are facing interconnected crises—climate change, war, economic inequality, and violations of the rights of minorities and migrants. However, the APEC Summit has failed to address any of these challenges or take a stand against Trump’s unilateral economic aggression and predatory neoliberalism.

In response, the International People’s Summit will release a joint declaration from progressive political parties, civil society organizations, activists, and intellectuals from APEC member economies and beyond. It will also launch a collective effort to build people-centered alternatives through international solidarity.

The declaration condemns the APEC summit, which only serves corporate and the geopolitical interests of the powerful countries, and denounces Trump’s predatory neoliberalism. It reaffirms our shared commitment to forge people-centered alternatives through international people’s action. Our solidarity extends beyond resistance to APEC 2025 Korea and Trump, but moves forward to a broader and stronger international solidarity.

We invite you to join us as a signatory to this declaration which envisions alternatives built by and for people everywhere. Individuals and organizations who share this vision are welcome to endorse it. The statement will be formally adopted at the People’s Summit on Nov. 1, announced at a press conference, and shared globally during the International People’s March that follows. We look forward to your active support and participation.

🗓️ Due: October 31 12:00 pm (KST) / October 31 3:00 am (UTC) / October 30 8:00 pm (PST)


The 2025 International People’s Declaration“We oppose APEC – We oppose Trump – And, we want an economy for all”

The APEC Leaders Summit will convene in Gyeongju from Oct. 31 to Nov. 1st. In response, left and progressive activists and organizations from APEC member economies and from around the world will also be gathering. We will hold our International People’s Summit to carry the voices of the world’s people, who oppose APEC 2025 and Trump. So, we hereby adopt the following International People’s Declaration.

1. The peoples of the world oppose this anti-people APEC that only serves up a feast for Trump and the monopoly capital of global conglomerates. In contrast, we are launching the International People’s Action for an economy for the people.

2. Consisting only of closed-door meetings among heads of state, corporate leaders, and ministers, APEC is an assembly of power and capital representing only the interests of powerful countries and big business. Since January, nearly thirty high-level official meetings have been held on issues such as AI, aging societies, food security, and energy, but the people have had no access to them. Nowhere on the APEC agenda do we find the world’s peoples who struggle for the livelihoods of workers and farmers, for gender equality, for the rights of minorities and migrants, against climate crisis and war.

We oppose APEC and all international conferences that exclude the world’s working people and serve only the interests of powerful countries and corporate capital. Summits behind closed doors must be put to an end. All discussions must be immediately disclosed to the world’s peoples, and popular participation must be guaranteed.

3. Trump’s economic war will provide no escape from the dual decline of the rate of profit and productivity which plagues neoliberalism. His economic strategy is merely a shift from a neoliberalism of expropriation to a neoliberalism of predation. The core essence is unchanged, but the economic war has merely intensified the violence and savagery. Trump’s economic aggression serves only the interests of the great powers headed by the United States, the profit of fossil-fuel energy businesses and the military industrial complex, and the development of particular monopolies; it cannot solve the dilemmas of humanity: the crises of labor, climate, inequality, war, and discrimination against migrants. We will build an alternative to Trump’s neoliberalism: an economy of the people, by the people, for the people.   

4. One by one the world has been preyed upon by Trump’s ruthless tariff war. It has not mounted an effective response against it. Even in this situation, heads of states and governments everywhere praise their own diplomacy as successes, fawning over Trump in hopes of shaving a few percentage points off their tariffs. Meanwhile, the economy collapses beginning with small countries in Africa, spreading to Asia and Latin America, through Europe and eventually to the United States. The people will bear the brunt of this crisis, as their livelihoods collapse and inequality deepens.

Trump’s ambition to rescue neoliberalism from the global economic crisis will fail due to its own contradictions. However, nothing simply happens on its own. We must struggle to bring a swift end to Trump’s economic war that will surely sweep the world’s peoples into disaster. 

5. Trump’s economic war stands for the interests of carbon-emitting capital, further intensifying the climate crisis. Instead of solutions, we see a regression to a carbon-emitting economy. Capital crosses borders with ease, shattering the lives of workers, while migrants seeking better lives become targets of exclusion and hate. Discrimination and hostility toward women are wielded as political weapons, and hard-won values of gender equality are dismantled in an instant.

We stand against the politics of exclusion and hate. We demand a broader and deeper democracy for all. We will fight for climate justice, equal rights for migrants, and gender equality for the world. Carrying onward the value of democracy, one of the great achievements of humanity, we will keep continuing our International People’s Solidarity March. 

6. Trump’s economic war does not stop at the economy. It is escalating the threat of even more wars. Empty talks abound about stopping the Russia-Ukraine War and the genocide in Palestine, while negotiations serve only the interests of great powers. As Trump forces countries to spend 5% of the GDP on military, which only serves the profits of the military-industrial complex, the cornerstone of neoliberalism, thereby accelerating the global threat of war. Further, he pushes for the revival of regional military blocs that make offensive wars inevitable, such as through NATO, the JAKUS military alliance, and the Indo-Pacific military strategy.

We demand immediate peace, not empty rhetoric. We demand an immediate cessation of hostilities based on reparations, and non-aggression pledges by the aggressors. We stand against global military spending increases, the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, regional military blocs, and wargames. We will not cease our international people’s solidarity struggle until we secure peace for all.

7. Gathered here today, we will open a forum on the dilemmas of humanity that those in the APEC Summit, with all their power and capital, have failed to address. We will seek solutions through the power of international solidarity. We will bring together voices of progressive intellectuals, organizations, and peoples worldwide who stand against Trump’s economic war and its turn toward predatory neoliberalism. We will forge an international solidarity action to seek out economic alternatives that serve everyone, not just the interests of capital and great powers.

8. To resolve the dilemmas of humanity produced by neoliberal capitalism, to end the monopolization of power produced by “post-democracy”, and to secure democracy for all, we will form the International People’s Action Solidarity. We will forge international solidarity among individuals, political parties, and organizations fighting for labor, climate justice, feminism, migrants’ rights, and peace. Furthermore, we will continue on a regular basis our International People’s Action opposing the international gatherings and summits that represent only the interests of great powers and monopoly capital.

We oppose an APEC that stands for the 1%, for the powerful and for capital!

We oppose an APEC that brings inequality, not prosperity!

APEC Leaders, listen to the people of the world, not to Trump!

We oppose Trump and his unilateral, coercive, predatory neoliberalism!

We oppose Trump and his wars and hate!

While capital crosses borders, migrants are expelled! We oppose Trump!

Trump’s politics of hate threatens democracy!

An economy for all! We oppose corporate greed!

An economy for all! We oppose Trump’s robbery!

With our International People’s Action Solidarity, let’s march to a world of labor, climate justice, peace, gender equality, and human rights!

Enough is enough! With our International People’s Action Solidarity, let’s put an end to war!

With our International People’s Action Solidarity, let’s build an economy for all, not just for the few!

The International People’s Declaration “We oppose APEC – We oppose Trump – And, we want an economy for all” can be signed here: https://forms.gle/Qk8caSGJYaWg7Sq88 .


Organizer: The Organizing Committee for the International People’s Response Against APEC 2025

Hosts: Alliance of Human Rights Clubs of Universities in Seoul (Korea), Arts Collective Maru (Korea), AWC Korea (Korea), Beyond Seoul (Korea), Gathering for Equal Society (Korea), Green Party Korea (Korea), Human Rights Movement Network Baram (Korea), International Strategy Center (Korea), International People’s Assembly (International), Justice Party (Korea), Labor Party (Korea), Local Community in Action Dongseoul Citizen Power (Korea), May Moonlight Alliance (Korea), Multipolarization Forum (Korea), National Gathering of Left Activists (Korea), Organizing Committee for System Change Movement (Korea), Our Turn to Speak (Korea), People Opposing Space Militarization and Rocket Launches (Korea), People Power Direct Action (Korea), Platform C (Korea), Seodaemun & Eunpyeong Citizen Alliance (Korea), Seoul Women’s Association (Korea), Solidarity Against Disability Discrimination (Korea), Together Labor (Korea), Together Nowon (Korea), Together Seoul (Korea), Urgent Action by South Korean Civil Society in Solidarity with Palestine (Korea), Women Making Peace (Korea), Yongsan Citizen Alliance (Korea), Youngdeungpo Citizen Alliance People (Korea)

📞 Contact: International Strategy Center (iscenter2015@gmail.com)

Categories
Uncategorized

The US is pursuing regime change in Venezuela

In August this year the United States’ military started moving a contingent of naval forces close to the coast of Venezuela.

It has been reported that this now includes four destroyers, a cruiser, a littoral combat ship, a three-vessel amphibious assault group, and a nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine. In addition, US combat aircraft have also been operating just off the Venezuela’s coast.

The US falsely claims its surge of military forces is in order to tackle drug smuggling. Since September has been firing missiles to destroy small boats off Venezuela’s coast. So far, four boats and their crews have been obliterated. There is no evidence that any of, the more than 20, people killed by the US were involved in any way with drugs. If there was involvement there should due process, not summary execution by the US military.

The US is seeking a change of regime in Venezuela. It has been working to support and direct opposition to the elected government. It is now stepping up that activity with its military threats against the country.

In this short video, Carlos Ron is interviewed by Anlin Wang.

Carlos Ron is Co-Coordinator of the Nuestra America office of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research. He is a former Venezuelan diplomat who served as Vice Minister for North America (2018-2025).

Anlin Wang has been organizing with the Democratic Socialists of America since 2018 and served on the International Committee since 2019, where he currently leads their China Working Group and serves as a liaison to No Cold War. Anlin is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and remains active in local organizing, where he has served on leadership of peoples’ movement organizations, worked as an organizer for progressive candidates seeking office, and acted as DSA liaison to events and movements in the region.

No Cold War Perspectives #19 Video

Categories
Uncategorized

The Sahel Seeks Sovereignty

Since 2020, a series of popular military coups in the Sahel region of Africa has bought to power governments that are seeking a path to establish their own countries’ sovereignty.

The coups that took place were in: Mali in August 2020; Burkina Faso in January 2022; and Niger in July 2023. Following these events, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), along with the African Union (AU), imposed sanctions and suspended the memberships of all three states.

In September 2023, in response to the threat of military intervention in Niger by ECOWAS, the heads of state of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger established the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).

The Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research has published an excellent dossier on the current struggle of the Sahel states, titled ‘The Sahel Seeks Sovereignty’. It is available in multiple languages from here:
https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-sahel-alliance-sovereignty/

In this short video, Mikaela Nhondo Erskog, in discussion with Dae-Han Song, explains how these states are trying to establish their sovereignty, whilst having to navigate a legacy of dependency and internal-external security challenges.

Mikaela Nhondo Erkog is a researcher and editor at Tricontinental: Institute for Research. She is also an educator and researcher at Pan Africa Today, the regional articulation of the International Peoples Assembly, and is a PhD student at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, Shanghai. She is a member of the international No Cold War collective.

Dae-Han Song is a part of the International Strategy Center and the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the international No Cold War collective.

No Cold War Perspectives #18 Video

Categories
Uncategorized

No Cold War supports the Global Sumud Gaza Flotilla

No Cold War’s statement in support of the Global Sumud Gaza Flotilla is produced below in English, Arabic, Spanish, Portuguese, Persian, Sebian & Macedonian.


English

No Cold War supports the Global Sumud Gaza Flotilla.

As a global platform against war and genocide, we stand in full solidarity with the brave people who are aboard the Global Sumud Gaza Flotilla that is on the way to the shores of Gaza, and we stand in solidarity with all protest movements for Gaza.

We send all the people on the boats our love and support, and to our specific comrades – Dr. Hanne Bosselaers (Medicine for the People, MPLP-GVHV, Belgium) and Ayoub Habraoui (Workers Democratic Party of Morocco and the International Peoples Assembly Youth Group).

Apartheid Israel’s genocide against Gaza has now created a famine in Gaza: an absolute outrage.

We are clear that Israel will attack the Global Sumud Gaza Flotilla and that Israel will not cease its genocide.

Therefore, we call for all people around the world to:

  1. Stand in full solidarity with the Global Sumud Gaza Flotilla.
  2. Demand an immediate Israeli ceasefire.
  3. Demand that the United Nations and other agencies be allowed to bring food, water, and medicine into Gaza immediately.
  4. Demand an end to all arms supplies to Israel.
  5. Demand a total energy blockade on Israel.
  6. Demand that our countries break diplomatic ties with Israel.
  7. Join the Palestinian and Global Civil Society Call for a Global Day of Action and Strike on 18 September 2025.


Arabic

لا للحرب تدعم أسطول الصمود العالمي إلى غزة.

بصفتنا حركة عالمية ضد الحرب والإبادة الجماعية، فإننا نقف بكامل تضامننا مع الشعب الشجاع الذي على متن أسطول الصمود العالمي إلى غزة المتجه نحو شواطئ غزة، ونقف أيضًا إلى جانب جميع الحركات الاحتجاجية من أجل غزة.

نرسل إلى جميع الأشخاص على متن القوارب حبنا ودعمنا، وإلى رفاقنا على وجه الخصوص – الدكتورة هان بوسيلارس (منظمة أطباء من أجل الشعب، MPLP-GVHV، بلجيكا) وأيوب حبراوي (حزب النهج الديمقراطي العمالي بالمغرب ومجموعة شباب القمة العالمية للشعوب).

لقد أدت إبادة إسرائيل العنصرية بحق غزة إلى خلق مجاعة مروعة: وهو أمر مدان بكل المقاييس.

نحن على يقين بأن إسرائيل ستهاجم أسطول الصمود العالمي إلى غزة، وأنها لن توقف جريمتها المستمرة بالإبادة.

وعليه، فإننا ندعو جميع شعوب العالم إلى:

          1.       الوقوف بكامل التضامن مع أسطول الصمود العالمي إلى غزة.

          2.       المطالبة بوقف فوري لإطلاق النار من قبل إسرائيل.

          3.       المطالبة بالسماح للأمم المتحدة وغيرها من الهيئات بإدخال الغذاء والماء والدواء إلى غزة فورًا.

          4.       المطالبة بوقف كل إمدادات السلاح إلى إسرائيل.

          5.       المطالبة بفرض حصار كامل على مصادر الطاقة لإسرائيل.

          6.       المطالبة بقطع العلاقات الدبلوماسية لبلداننا مع إسرائيل.

          7.       الانضمام إلى الدعوة الفلسطينية والعالمية لمجتمع المدني من أجل يوم عالمي للنضال والإضراب في 18 شتنبر 2025


Spanish

Basta de Guerra Fría apoya a la Flotilla Global Sumud Gaza.

Como plataforma global contra la guerra y el genocidio, nos solidarizamos plenamente con las valientes personas que se encuentran a bordo de la Flotilla Global Sumud, que se dirige a las costas de Gaza, y nos solidarizamos con todos los movimientos de protesta en favor de Gaza.

Enviamos nuestro amor y apoyo a todas las personas que se encuentran en los barcos, y en particular a nuestrxs compañerxs Dra. Hanne Bosselaers (Medicine for the People, MPLP-GVHV, Bélgica) y Ayoub Habraoui (Partido Democrático de los Trabajadores de Marruecos y Grupo Juvenil de la Asamblea Internacional de los Pueblos).

El genocidio del apartheid israelí contra Gaza ha provocado ahora una hambruna allí, una auténtica atrocidad.

Tenemos claro que Israel atacará la Flotilla Global Sumud a Gaza y que Israel no cesará en su genocidio.

Por lo tanto, hacemos un llamado a todas las personas del mundo para que:

  1. Muestren su total solidaridad con la Flotilla Global Sumud Gaza.
  2. Exijan un alto el fuego inmediato por parte de Israel.
  3. Exijan que se permita a las Naciones Unidas y otras agencias llevar alimentos, agua y medicinas a Gaza de inmediato.
  4. Exijan el fin de todos los suministros de armas a Israel.
  5. Exijan un bloqueo energético total a Israel.
  6. Exijan que nuestros países rompan relaciones diplomáticas con Israel.
  7. Se unan al llamado de la sociedad civil palestina y mundial para celebrar una jornada de acción y huelga mundial el 18 de septiembre de 2025.

Portuguese

A campanha No Cold War  (Não à guerra fria) apoia a Flotilha de Solidariedade Global Sumud para Gaza.

Como uma plataforma global contra a guerra e o genocídio, nós damos toda nossa solidariedade às pessoas corajosas que estão a bordo da Flotilha de Solidariedade Global Sumud para Gaza, que está a caminho do litoral de Gaza. E nós damos nossa solidariedade a todos os movimentos de protesto por Gaza.

Enviamos todo nosso amor e apoio a todas as pessoas nos barcos, e em especial aos nossos companheiros e companheiras – Dra. Hanne Bosselaers (Medicina para o Povo, MPLP-GVHV, Bélgica) e Ayoub Habraoui (Partido Democrático dos Trabalhadores do Marrocos e da Juventude da Assembleia Internacional dos Povos).

O genocídio do Estado de apartheid de Israel contra Gaza já causou uma fome catastrófica no território: isso é um absurdo total.

Nós temos clareza de que Israel vai atacar a Flotilha de Solidariedade Global Sumud para Gaza e de que Israel não vai parar seu genocídio.

Por isso, nós convocamos todas as pessoas ao redor do mundo para:

  1. Dar total solidariedade à Flotilha de Solidariedade Global Sumud para Gaza.
  2. Exigir um cessar-fogo imediato de Israel.
  3. Exigir que as Nações Unidas e outros órgãos possam levar comida, água e remédios para Gaza imediatamente.
  4. Exigir o fim de todo fornecimento de armas para Israel.
  5. Exigir um bloqueio total de energia em Israel.
  6. Exigir que nossos países cortem relações diplomáticas com Israel.
  7. Participar do Chamado da Sociedade Civil Palestina e Global para um Dia Global de Ação e Greve em 18 de setembro de 2025.

Persian

بیانیهٔ اعلام حمایت تشکل «نه به جنگ سرد» از کارزار جهانی «صمود» در غزه

ما به‌عنوان یک تشکل جهانی علیه جنگ و نسل‌کشی، همبستگی کامل خود را با مردم شجاعی که سوار بر ناوگان جهانی صمود غزه در راه رسیدن به سواحل غزه‌اند، و همچنین با تمامی جنبش‌های اعتراضی برای دفاع از غزه، اعلام می‌کنیم.

ما عشق و حمایت خود را نثار تمام کسانی می‌کنیم که سوار بر این کشتی‌ها هستند، به‌ویژه رفقایمان – دکتر هانه بوسلرس (پزشکان برای مردم، MPLP-GVHV، بلژیک) و ایوب حبراوی (حزب دموکراتیک کارگران مراکش و گروه جوانان مجمع بین‌المللی خلق‌ها).

نسل‌کشی رژیم آپارتاید اسرائیل علیه غزه اکنون به ایجاد قحطی در غزه انجامیده است؛ این یک فاجعه و رسوایی مطلق است.

ما کاملاً آگاهیم که اسرائیل به ناوگان جهانی صمود غزه حمله خواهد کرد و دست از نسل‌کشی برنخواهد داشت.

بنابراین، از تمامی مردم جهان می‌خواهیم که:

۱. همبستگی کامل خود را با ناوگان جهانی صمود غزه اعلام کنند.

۲. خواستار آتش‌بس فوری از جانب اسرائیل شوند.

۳. خواستار آن شوند که سازمان ملل و سایر نهادها امکان داشته باشند مواد غذایی، آب و دارو را فوراً وارد غزه کنند.

۴. خواستار پایان هرگونه تأمین تسلیحاتی اسرائیل شوند.

۵. خواستار انسداد کامل جریان تأمین انرژی اسرائیل شوند.

۶. خواستار قطع روابط دیپلماتیک کشورهای خود با اسرائیل شوند.

۷. به فراخوان جامعهٔ مدنی فلسطین و جهان برای روز جهانی اقدام و اعتصاب در ۱۸ سپتامبر ۲۰۲۵ بپیوندند.


Serbian

Kolektiv „Ne za Hladni rat“ izražava svoju podršku Globalnoj Samud Gaza flotili.

Kao globalna platforma protiv rata i genocida, stojimo u punoj solidarnosti sa hrabrim ljudima koji su deo Globalne Samud Gaza flotile koja je na putu ka obalama Gaze, podržavajući istovremeno i sve druge protestne pokrete za Gazu.

Svim ljudima koji plove na brodovima šaljemo našu ljubav i podršku, a posebno našim drugovima, dr Hane Boselars (iz Medicine za sve ljude, MPLP-GVHV, Belgija) i Ajubu Habraouiju (iz Radničke demokratske partije Maroka i iz Omladinske grupe Međunarodne narodne skupštine).

Genocid aparthejdske države Izrael nad Gazom sada se pretvorio u izgladnjivanje, što je apsolutno užasavajuće i neprihvatljivo.

Nama je jasno da će Izrael napasti Globalnu Samud Gaza flotilu i da Izrael neće tek tako prekinuti genocid.

Zato pozivamo sve ljude širom sveta da:

  1. Stanu u punu solidarnost sa Globalnom Samud Gaza Flotilom.
  2. Zahtevaju hitan prekid vatre od strane Izraela.
  3. Zahtevaju da Ujedinjene nacije i druge agencije odmah dobiju dozvolu da unesu hranu, vodu i lekove u Gazu.
  4. Zahtevaju prekid celokupnog snabdevanja oružjem za Izrael.
  5. Zahtevaju potpunu energetsku blokadu Izraela.
  6. Pridruže se Palestinskom i Globalnom pozivu građanskog društva za Globalni dan akcije i štrajka 18. septembra 2025. godine.

Macedonian

Колективот „Не за Студена војна“ ја изразува својата поддршка за Глобалната Самуд Газа флотила.

Како глобална платформа против војната и геноцидот, стоиме во целосна солидарност со храбрите луѓе кои дел на Глобалната Самуд Газа флотила која е на пат кон бреговите на Газа, поддржувајќи ги истовремено сите други протесни движења за Газа.

На сите луѓе кои пловат на бротчињатата им ја испраќаме нашата љубов и поддршка, а посебно на нашите другари, д-р Хане Боселерс (од Медицина за сите луѓе, MPLP-GVHV, Белигија) и Ајоуб Хахраоуи (од Работничката демократска партија на Мароко и од Младинската група на Меѓународното собрание на народите).

Геноцидот кој го врши апартхејд државата Израел врз Газа сега се претвори во изгладнување, што е апсолутно ужаснувачко и неприфатливо.

Нам ни е јасно дека Израел ќе ја нападне Глобалната Самуд Газа флотила и дека Израел нема туку така да го прекине геноцидот.

Затоа, ги повикуваме сите луѓе низ целиот свет да:

  1. Застанат во целосна солидарност со Глобалната Самуд Газа Флотила.
  2. Побараат итен прекин на огнот од страна на Израел.
  3. Побараат Обединетите нации и другите агенции веднаш да добијат дозвола да внесат храна, вода и лекови во Газа.
  4. Побараат прекин на целото снабдување со оружје за Израел.
  5. Побараат целосна енергетска блокада врз Израел.
  6. Се приклучат на Палестинскиот и Глобалниот повик на граѓанското општество за Глобален ден на акција и штрајк на 18 септември 2025 година.
Categories
Uncategorized

Trump and Europe propose no realistic way to end the Ukraine war

By John Ross

The attempt at the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska on 15 August to reach an unconditional ceasefire in the Ukraine war was inevitably bound to fail, as it would simply mean in practice a beneficial pause during which Ukraine, which is in a worsening position in the war, would be rearmed by NATO — and, as this is transparently clear, it was bound to be rejected by Russia. Such a one-sided proposal will therefore also continue to fail despite attempts by European leaders and Ukraine to revive it at, and following, their own summit with Trump on 18 August. The proposal by the European leaders is in reality, therefore, one to continue the war, and for its outcome simply to be decided on the battlefield. As Ukraine is currently losing the war, and has no realistic prospect of reversing this without a direct intervention of NATO military forces, which would threaten a World War, and which for that reason NATO is not prepared to undertake, all that Europe’s leaders are proposing is the loss of many tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of Ukrainian and Russian lives at the end of which the Ukraine will still lose.

This is a helpful outcome only for those cynical and destructive political forces, which do exist in the U.S. and Europe, who see the continuation of the war as an end in itself — in the hope that it will weaken Russia. The outcome of these summits, therefore, makes clear that there will not be a rapid outcome to the war and once again focuses attention on the fundamental issues which created it – with its disastrous consequences. 

Ending the Ukraine war is, in turn, a vital step for Europe to get out of the economic, social and political crisis which has been worsening for years — and which has imposed great damage on the rest of the world.

The common framework of both the U.S. and European leaders towards the summit was a reactionary one of a division of labour in which Europe will undertake a large scale military build up in order to strategically create conditions for the U.S. to devote less of its military resources to Europe and more to its attempt to confront China. As an additional goal the U.S., in particular, has been seeking control of Ukraine’s mineral resources.

Within that framework there are simply tactical differences. Trump, who sees the U.S.’s main strategic goal as to separate the close relations of China and Russia ­ — which is a combination creating very serious difficulties for the U.S. — has been prepared to envisage some concessions to Russia in an attempt to achieve this — although not ones which will meet the chief issues which lie at the root of the war, the eastward expansion of NATO and the rights of the large Russian speaking minority in the Ukraine.    

The reason European leaders also put forward proposals which clearly cannot end the war— most recently in the joint statement by Macron, Meloni, Merz, Starmer, Stubb and von der Leyen on 9 August, ahead of the Trump Putin summit — is also because they refuse to adopt a policy which settles  the two interrelated issues which led to this catastrophic war. Their proposal for an unconditional ceasefire was even more unviable given the admission by Merkel, not contradicted by any European leader, that the Minsk ceasefire agreements in 2014 and 2015 were used and seen by European leaders and NATO as an opportunity to qualitatively reinforce Ukraine’s armed forces.

The first fundamental reason for the war was the entirely predicted disaster of NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe —in particular the attempt to incorporate Ukraine into NATO. Numerous US experts on Eastern Europe predicted this ruinous result in advance — led by George Kennan, the original architect of US Cold War strategy, who warned NATO expansion would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era”. This warning has been entirely vindicated.

The reason is obvious. The attempt to expand a military alliance and its resources up to the borders of a major power, particularly the most sensitive parts of its border, will not be accepted and will inevitably lead to crisis.

Th U.S. itself should have easily understood this. At the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis the U.S. made clear that it would not accept the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba and would go to any lengths, if necessary nuclear war, to stop this. The reason was obvious — the distance from Havana to Washington is only 1,100 miles/1,800 kilometres, the flight time for a missile over such a distance is so short that military defence is impossible. But, in comparison, the distance from Kyiv to Moscow is only 470 miles/750 kilometres, less than half the distance of Havana to Washington! Furthermore, Ukraine is a traditional route of conventional military attack on Russia – as seen both in the 1941 Nazi invasion “Operation Barbarossa” and in the 1942 campaign that culminated in Stalingrad. Russia therefore repeatedly explicitly stated that Ukraine’s membership of NATO was a red line for it. The U.S. was therefore demanding that Russia accept military conditions which the U.S. made clear it would use any means to stop if applied to itself.

Second, Ukraine, was a bilingual/binational state. The east and west of Ukraine were historically separated by language, religion, and history – in short, there was a national question within the Ukraine between a nearly 30% Russian speaking minority, as found by the 2001 census, and a Ukrainian speaking majority.

Bilingual/binational states, with very large minorities, can be kept together. Within Europe Belgium is an example and in North America Canada is. But the precondition for unity is acknowledgement of the national/linguistic rights of both groups and protection of a minority.

For example, in Canada unity was maintained only by a strict bilingual policy under which even in parts of the country where there are almost no French speakers, or English speakers, all signage must be bilingual, both French and English may be use in the legal system, in commercial transactions, in government etc. Even with these conditions Canadian unity has only been held together by a very narrow margin – in the 1995 referendum Quebec voted against independence by only 45,000 votes, a vote of only 50.6% against. If there had not been a bilingual policy, or policies unacceptable to the French speaking minority had been embarked on, Quebec would certainly have voted in favour of independence.

But after 2014 in Ukraine a systematic policy of institutional discrimination against the very large Russian speaking minority was embarked on. As the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission, which certainly cannot be accused of being pro-Russian, stated: “the current Law on National Minorities is far from providing adequate guarantees for the protection of minorities… many other provisions which restrict the use of minority languages have already been in force since 16 July 2019”. The inevitable result of such a policy was to destroy the basis of the unity of the bilingual/binational Ukrainian state.

These two issues inevitably interrelated, because the Russian speaking minority did not support  membership of a pact, NATO, which is clearly aimed against Russia but had favoured neutrality.

Independently of any view of the present government of Russia the statement by Russia’s foreign minister Lavrov is accurate that if it had not been for the 2014 coup against the elected Ukrainian government, the discriminatory laws against the large Russian speaking minority, and the cynical use of the Minsk I and Minsk II ceasefire agreements to simply reinforce Ukraine’s military forces, the Ukrainian state would still exist today in its borders established in 1991.

But with the combination of overt discrimination against the large Russian speaking minority after the events of 2014, and the attempt of Ukraine to join NATO, which together were the strategic policies which led the 2022 war, it is in practice impossible to restore the unity of the former Ukrainian state. The attempt to do so will only prolong a disastrous war as it would require a military reconquest of the east of Ukraine and Crimea — which it is impossible for Ukraine to achieve and which would be reactionary given the policies of the Ukrainian government against the large Russian speaking minority in the east of Ukraine. De facto Ukraine has already split.

Europe’s leaders, by maintaining the fantasy that the unity of the Ukrainian state can be maintained under these conditions, are prolonging a doomed war, which Ukraine will not win, but which, if it continues, will cost tens, more probably hundreds of thousands, more lives. They are also completely out of touch with the reality of overwhelming majority opinion in Ukraine. The latest Gallup poll of Ukrainian opinion, carried out in August, found 69% of the Ukrainian population believed “Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible” compared to only 24% who believed “Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war” — that is a majority of almost three to one.

But instead of dealing with these realities the statement by European leaders prior to the Alaska summit, and since, avoided both serious issues. For example on 9 August they announced they were: “upholding our substantive military and financial support to Ukraine, including through the work of the Coalition of the Willing” and calling for the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine. Zelensky responded that they: “would not give up their land.”

In reality, it was Zelensky and extreme right-wing forces in Ukraine who recklessly gambled and lost, thereby destroying the unity of the Ukrainian state. Prior to 2014 no serious political force in Ukraine favoured the splitting of the state — as Ukraine was both a bilingual state, with institutional guarantees for the Russian speaking minority and neutral between NATO and Russia. Once these were overturned inevitably the disintegration of Ukraine began.

Zelensky and the extreme, in some significant cases explicitly pro-Nazi, right gambled that that they could introduce institutional discrimination against the Russian speaking minority, and gambled that with U.S. backing they could bring Ukraine into NATO — despite Russia making clear that this would be to cross a red line. In doing so Zelensky and the extreme right destroyed the bilingual/binational Ukrainian state and have led to the devastation of their own part of that state. That is the price they are paying for their reactionary gamble.

But the rest of Europe’s people in particular, and more generally the world, is also paying a terrible price for this failed gamble. Europe’s economy has replaced its cheap energy supply of Russian gas with expensive U.S. liquid natural gas — a key U.S. aim. As a result of these and related policies, Europe’s economy has been pushed into extremely slow growth. Now NATO is attempting to push through huge European increases in military spending which will inevitably be paid for by reductions in social protection and spending. This aim, of using the military spending on the Ukraine war to undermine social protection in Europe, is more and more proclaimed by Europe’s leaders — for example most recently in Merz’s statement that Germany can no longer afford its welfare state, although it apparently can afford a massive military build up that will take place at the expense of that social protection. The inflation generated by the war damaged many Global South countries.

To restore progress in Europe it is necessary to pursue a totally opposite course to the one that led to the Ukraine disaster.

The devastating mistake of expanding NATO must be reversed, including that Ukraine will not be part of NATO. Instead a policy of détente and peaceful relations, and peace ensuring measures, with Russia needs to be pursued.

The increase in military spending must be reversed and priority given to the social well being of Europe’s people.

To revive Europe’s economy it must re-establish economic links with Russia, to regain access to its previous supply of lower priced energy. 

The division of Ukraine that will now take place was unnecessary. Ukraine’s unity could have been maintained if the pre-2014 policy of respecting the rights of the Russian speaking minority and a policy of neutrality was maintained – but it was not. The shattered vessel cannot be put back together again. A refusal to face this fact will simply prolong the agony, leading to the loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of lives in a futile quest to achieve the impossible. Europe’s and the U.S.’s leaders are incapable of piloting Europe and its people out of the impasse unless they face the realities of the situation and reverse course.

Categories
Uncategorized

Japan today: LDP, Trump’s tariffs, New Cold War

In last month’s (July 2025) House of Councillors (upper house) elections in Japan, the national vote share of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), fell to 21.6% – its lowest result in the party’s history. Plus Sanseitō, a far right party, made a dramatic advance by securing a 12.6% share of the national vote.

In this No Cold War Perspectives video, Seishi Hinada, in discussion with Anlin Wang, explains this recent election in the context of the history of the LDP. Also discussed is Trumps recent imposition of tariffs on Japan, alongside the stepped up strengthening of Japan’s military – and increasing international operations coordinated with the US and its allies.

Japan’s current militarisation is taking place, despite it not having properly addressed its war crimes prior to its defeat in 1945. It is concerning that it is participating in plans for another war with China, which the Japanese anti-war movement ZENKO is campaigning against.

Hinada, Seishi has been involved in the ZENKO (National Assembly for Peace & Democracy) movement since his student days, participating in peace activism, postwar compensation campaigns, and anti-base struggles in Hiroshima.

Currently, ZENKO is continuing protest and advocacy actions in Japan targeting Israeli partner corporations and the government, to help stop the massacre in Gaza. In particular, it is campaigning to withdraw major Japanese arms manufacturers (such as MHI, IHI, and MELCO) from the international supply chain for the F-35I Adir fighter jets, the main aircraft used by the IDF in bombing Gaza.

It is also running the ZHAP (ZENKO Henoko Anti-base Project) campaign to oppose the construction of a new base in Henoko, Okinawa, and to stop the militarization of the entire East Asia region in preparation for war against China.

By connecting comrades in the U.S. DSA with those engaged in anti-base movements in Taiwan, Korea, and Okinawa, ZENKO aims to build cross-border grassroots solidarity, strengthen dialogue and diplomacy over military deterrence, and raise international public opinion for disarmament and peace—pressuring governments to shift their policies.
Hinada is also a member of the MDS (Movement for Democratic Socialism).

Anlin Wang has been organizing with the Democratic Socialists of America since 2018 and served on the International Committee since 2019, where he currently leads their China Working Group and serves as a liaison to No Cold War.

Anlin is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and remains active in local organizing, where he has served on leadership of peoples’ movement organizations, worked as an organizer for progressive candidates seeking office, and acted as DSA liaison to events and movements in the region.

No Cold War Perspectives #17 Video

Categories
Uncategorized

Gaza, and the UN at 80

Helena Cobban, President of Just World Educational, looks at the coming session of the UN General Assembly and how it should deal with Israel’s genocide in Gaza – including the issue of invoking the UN’s rarely used emergency ‘Uniting for Peace’ procedure.

* * *

For many decades now, Israel has acted as the tip of the spear for “White”, Western colonial domination of West Asia and much of North Africa. Through prodigious and focused efforts, Israel’s leaders so successfully meshed their military and technological elites with those of the United States that they achieved a large degree of control over U.S. actions in countries from Iran to Libya– including, of course, U.S. policy on the crucial Palestine Question.

The fully U.S.-backed genocide that Israel has pursued for the past two years in Gaza has echoed a lengthy string of similar actions that “White” colonial powers– including the United States–have enacted against Indigenous peoples on all continents for the past five centuries. In today’s largely post-colonial world, this genocide has thus provoked a tsunami of revulsion across (and beyond) the whole of the Global South. This has greatly reduced the appeal and “soft power” that, before October 2023, Washington was able to deploy in its conduct of world affairs. It has also thrust the 30-year-long, de-facto hegemony that Washington has exercised over the UN’s global-level decision-making into ever sharper question.

Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the international reaction to it are now seen by many as marking the beginning of the end of the lengthy domination that “White”, European-origined governments have exercised for many centuries over much of the Global South.

We should note, too, that during this genocide Israel’s leaders have harshly attacked not only the steps that various bodies of the now 80-year-old United Nations have taken to end or temper the genocide, but also the foundations of UN legitimacy itself. They have thus presented the post-1945 world system with the greatest challenge it has ever seen.


Last June saw the 80th anniversary of the signing in San Francisco of the UN Charter by the leaders of all 51 of the world’s then-recognized independent governments. (That was before the dismantling of the large, globe-girdling European empires. Today, the UN has 193 members.) This September will see the opening of the 80th annual session of the UN General Assembly (GA). At this year’s GA more questions than ever before will be raised about the dysfunctionality of the UN rule that has allowed Washington to repeatedly wield its veto in the UN Security Council to block the Council from acting to end Israel’s genocide in Gaza, or to end Israel’s many other gross violations of international law across West Asia.

The organization I head, Just World Educational, has been among many citizen groups around the world that have called for the GA to take the rarely-used step of passing a “Uniting for Peace” (UfP) resolution, which provides a politically powerful (though still only hortatory) way for the GA to confront the veto power that Washington has wielded in the Security Council on the Gaza issue. There is, however, nothing that even the smartest citizen-based groups can do to effect direct change in the GA. For that, we need to rely on visionary and committed governmental bodies.

Luckily for our brothers and sisters in Gaza– and for the integrity of our current international system– a number of governmental bodies have stepped forward. At the forefront has been the de-facto government in Yemen headed by the Ansarullah movement (the “Houthis”), which has acted to block all shipping heading to or from Israel from transiting the strategic Bab el-Mandeb straits, and also to launch sporadic long-distance missiles at military targets in Israel.

In addition, there is now also a growing coalition of other world governments committed to taking concrete action to end Israel’s genocide in Gaza. This is the Hague Group of 13 mid-size governments from the Global South. At a high-level gathering in Bogotá, Colombia last month, the Hague Group governments vowed to:

  • ban the transfer of any military equipment from their countries or their ports to Israel;
  • end any investments their national bodies might have in Israeli state-related funds; and
  • take other (sadly, non-specific) steps to persuade the UN to help the people of Gaza.

Recently, Norway announced that its largest-in-the-world sovereign wealth fund would divest from 11 Israeli companies and review the investments it continues to hold in further 50 Israeli companies.

Elsewhere in Europe, the governments of France and Britain have announced moves towards granting a formal “recognition” to the “State of Palestine.” That step has almost zero practical weight, and is also (as I shall explain below) quite possibly harmful to the push for Palestinian rights. But the fact that even those veteran colonial powers in London and Paris have felt obliged to take it is another marker of how unpopular the U.S.-Israeli genocide in Gaza has become worldwide.


The global momentum to take action to end Israel’s genocide in Gaza has clearly been growing in recent months. But it is still nowhere near enough. Back in July of 2024, remember, the UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in Art. 261 of a key advisory opinion (PDF here), that Israel’s entire, continued presence in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem was, quite simply, “unlawful” and needs to be ended.


Two notes on the current prospects for global action

A. Diplomatic victories alone are not enough

The GA has invoked the UfP mechanism a dozen times over the years. Most notably (and most successfully), in October 1956 U.S. Pres. Dwight Eisenhower invoked it to side-step the vetoes that Britain and France have always had in the Security Council, and to win effective UN action to reverse the aggression those two powers and Israel had just undertaken against Egypt.

But it was not simply the two-thirds majority that Eisenhower won for his project in the GA that ended that Tripartite Aggression. The stark threat that he also delivered to the French, British, and Israeli leaders that he would end U.S. support for their currencies and their economies if they did not comply with the UN’s order to withdraw from Egypt (and Gaza) in a timely way was, by all accounts, far more persuasive in forcing their withdrawal than the mere existence of the UN resolution itself.

In 1956, Washington’s economic power was at its peak. Britain, France, and Israel were all deeply dependent on U.S. economic support. Today, if the Hague Group or any other group of anti-genocide governments succeed in winning a UfP-derived resolution that demands an end to the Gaza genocide (or, more broadly, the speedy implementation of the whole of the ICJ’s July 2024 ruling), then that diplomatic victory would have zero effect unless it is backed up by concerted action in other spheres, including the economic. It is true that the U.S. power in the world economy is considerably smaller today than it was in 1956, and that the many governments against whom Washington has deployed tough economic measures have developed increasingly effective and powerful ways to work around Washington’s power within the world economic system. Nonetheless, it is still hard to conclude that the governments representing the Global Majority of nations are yet ready to use against Washington the same degree of economic steadfastness with which Eisenhower confronted London and Paris back in 1956.

B. The political underpinnings of any diplomatic action are crucial

Several of the citizen initiatives calling for UN action to end the genocide in Gaza call for the UN to deploy an “armed protection force” in Gaza, tasked with pushing back Israel’s occupation forces from zones in part or all of Gaza sufficient to allow the distribution of aid to the population there. But in locations like Haiti, the deployment of an “armed UN protection force” in the absence of any clearly stated plan for the post-conflict governance of that country has proved disastrous.

In any future UN challenge to Israel’s occupation rule in Gaza, the global stakes would be many times higher than they have been regarding the UN’s chronic governance failures in Haiti. Therefore, if a UN force is to be deployed to Gaza, similar to how a UN force was deployed to Suez and Sinai in 1956-57 to replace the Tripartite occupiers in those areas, the political/governance horizon within which this force operates needs to be clearly stated in the UN’s authorizing resolution. The ICJ’s July 2024 ruling provides one necessary, but still far from sufficient, basis for such a horizon: namely, the urgent need, as stated in that ruling, to completely end Israel’s illegal occupation rule over Gaza (and also, at some point soon thereafter, the West Bank.)

Another key dimension of any effective UN action to end Israel’s genocide and occupation in Gaza that needs to be successfully resolved is the intra-Palestinian political dimension. It is in this arena that the focus that some Western governments have recently placed on “recognizing the State of Palestine” poses a potentially dangerous distraction. Back in 1988, the Palestinians’ then-widely recognized liberation coalition the PLO won UN recognition as a (still only aspirational) entity called the State of Palestine. Five years later, though, that same PLO entered into a very damaging interim arrangement, concluded directly with the State of Israel, under which a new body called the Palestinian Interim Self-Governance Authority (PA) would have limited powers of civil self-rule in parts of the West Bank and Gaza. Over the decades since 1993, the PA and also the PLO have increasingly come to function as Quisling forces under Israeli-US control, including by acting alongside Israeli forces to suppress and oppress those Palestinian movements that remain committed to resisting Israel’s illegal rule of the West Bank and Gaza.

In that context, international moves to strengthen the hand of a “State of Palestine” that today represents only a small, and clearly Israel-allied, portion of the Palestinian movement can be seen as very dangerous. What is needed, instead, are effective moves to bring about a reconciliation of all the Palestinian factions on the basis of an unequivocal commitment to national liberation. Algeria and China are among the states that have worked hard to achieve this, but the needed intra-Palestinian reconciliation has not yet been won.


What is to be done?

In light of the above, here are the actions that supporters of Palestinian rights everywhere could most effectively be undertaking:

  1. Work to broaden and deepen the important campaign of the Hague Group. Broaden, in terms of working to win support for the Hague Group’s campaign from additional governments, and also to publicize it in areas in which little is known about it. Deepen, by working with Hague Group members to persuade them to pursue plans for completely ending Israel’s occupation rule of Gaza, in addition to their present commitments.
  2. Advocacy that clearly links the goal of ending the Israeli-US genocide in Gaza with that of ending the Israeli-US occupation of Gaza in its entirety, on the basis of international law and the ICJ’s July 2024 ruling. After such a genocide, how can the Israeli-US axis ever again be trusted to rule over Gaza (or indeed, over the West Bank?)
  3. Calling on national governments to push the UN– using the UfP mechanism as necessary– to despatch to Gaza an armed force capable of rolling back the Israeli-US occupation on the basis of international law, with the goals not just of protecting the delivery of humanitarian aid but also of supporting the Strip’s residents and their Palestinian compatriots everywhere in their long-denied exercise of sovereignty over this portion of their homeland.
  4. Work to support all efforts to reconcile internal differences among the Palestinian movements on the basis of the Palestinian Prisoners’ Document of 2006, which specified the entry of Hamas and its allies into the PLO on a mutually agreed basis.
  5. Continuing political work to reveal the hegemony that Washington has exercised over Arab-Israeli diplomacy since the 1970s, most often in close linkage with Israel’s colonial plans; to understand the many arenas and ways in which that hegemony has inflicted harm on the peoples of West Asia; and to challenge that hegemony at every level.

End the genocide! End Israel’s illegal occupation! Palestinian survival and Palestinian rights now!

The above article was originally published here by Globalities.

Categories
Uncategorized

Why it is crucial for all countries to defeat Trump’s tariff regime

By John Ross

Trump is attempting to impose an international trade system arbitrarily dictated by the U.S.

The tariffs adopted by the U.S. to meet Trump’s August 1 deadline fully confirm just how dangerous the new trade system Trump is attempting to impose on the world is for all countries, both in the Global South and the Global North.

Beyond even arbitrary economic decisions, Trump’s actions make it clear that under this system, unilateral U.S. tariff dictats will be used against countries that adopt political policies the U.S. opposes. Thus:

  • Trump has imposed a 50% tariff on Brazil because it is trying Bolsonaro for attempting a coup d’état.
  • A 25% tariff has been imposed on India after Trump criticized it for importing Russian oil.
  • A 35% tariff has been imposed on Canada after Trump stated that reaching a trade deal was difficult because Canada had decided to recognise a Palestinian state.

Furthermore, as Trump has confirmed through his frequent changes in rates, he intends to introduce a system in which the U.S. can alter its policy at any time to promote its interests against those of any other country.

The WTO system was very far from perfect; it had a systematic bias against developing countries. However, the world trade system that Trump is attempting to introduce eliminates even the elements of multilateralism and the rules established in WTO agreements, making it a far more dangerous system for every country.

It is also clear that if the major economies had decided to act jointly, Trump could not have imposed this new system. The U.S. only accounts for 11% of world merchandise trade. If other countries, representing 89% of world merchandise trade, had united against Trump, they could have easily defeated his attempt to reorganise world trade. But Trump, rightly, calculated that the leadership of most Global North states, such as Britain and the EU, would capitulate to him and act even against both their national interests and the interests of their peoples.

The EU’s capitulation to Trump

In particular, the EU-U.S. trade deal represents another severe blow inflicted by the U.S. on Europe’s economy and its people. This follows on from the vast economic cost of the Ukraine war caused by NATO expansion, the U.S. blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline, the forcing of the EU to buy expensive U.S. LNG to replace much cheaper Russian gas, and the enormous cost to Europe of rearmament in line with the U.S. demands to increase military spending to 3.5% of GDP, among other blows.

The cumulative effect of these blows is that Europe’s economy has been deeply damaged, and its people have suffered a severe economic assault.

The new agreement’s key terms all damage Europe’s economy and its people.

  • The 15% tariff imposed by the U.S. on imports from the EU, compared to the current average of 4.8%, has not been met with an equivalent tariff increase by the EU on U.S. goods. This 15% tariff will exert downward pressure on EU exports to the U.S., which in turn will negatively affect EU production and employment.
  • The EU agreed to purchase $750 billion worth of U.S. LNG over three years. There is doubt about the EU’s physical capacity to import that volume of LNG within this period. However, this commitment will lead to further investment aimed at moving closer to the target. Consequently, the EU will be further locked into expensive U.S. LNG rather than the significantly cheaper Russian gas — achieving this was one of the U.S.’s key objectives in Europe.
  • The EU agreed to purchase “hundreds of billions of dollars” worth of U.S. military equipment, meaning that reductions in social spending in Europe to finance rearmament will be paid to U.S. companies.
Why the EU capitulated

As U.S. and European commentators analysed this deal was a capitulation by the EU and a huge victory for Trump. France’s Prime Minister François Bayrou stated that the bloc had “resigned itself into submission”. Germany’s largest industry association, the Federation of German Industries, warned that the agreement was “an inadequate compromise” that would harm the country’s “export-oriented industry”– although German Chancellor Merz and Italian Prime Minister Meloni welcomed the deal and had played key roles in pushing the EU to make this agreement. Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia group, the leading U.S. public geopolitical analysis firm, described it as the “biggest win of second trump administration to date

The Financial Times conducted a detailed analysis of the process and forces leading to the deal: “In the face of Donald Trump’s trade blitz, the EU began its path to capitulation on April 10… On April 10 it suspended its retaliatory tariffs… [r]ather than join Canada and China with instant retaliation… Under the framework deal struck by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and Trump… the EU has swallowed a broad-based “baseline” US tariff of 15 per cent.…

“could the EU, the world’s largest trading bloc and supposedly an economic heavyweight, have extracted better terms had it not pulled its punches early on?

“’He’s the bully in the schoolyard and we didn’t join others in standing up to him,’ said one diplomat. ‘Those who don’t hang together get hanged separately.’

“Georg Riekeles, a former commission official who helped negotiate the UK’s exit from the bloc, said the EU’s most recent threat to apply €93bn of retaliatory tariffs against US goods came far too late.

“’With the benefit of hindsight, the EU would have been better off answering the US vigorously in April in a one-two combo with China’s retaliation against the US tariff hikes, which left markets and Trump reeling,’ said Riekeles…

“There is no hiding the fact the EU was rolled over by…Trump… said one ambassador”

A decisive factor in the EU’s capitulation was its support for NATO. As the Financial Times noted: “Europe’s dependency on America’s security guarantee was a further argument against trade confrontation… Fears that Trump would cut off weapons supplies to Ukraine, pull troops out of Europe, or even quit NATO overshadowed the talks, diplomats said.”

Within Europe, faced with the capitulation of the EU leadership, and that by figures such as Merz and Meloni, the far right has capitalised on this opportunity to gain further popularity by attacking the deal. Alice Weidel, co-leader of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany, stated that the deal was “not an agreement, but a slap in the face to European consumers and producers!”

Trump’s “divide and rule” tactic

Throughout his tariff war Trump has used a “pick them off one by one” tactic. The Financial Times noted that Britain, as usual, was the first to capitulate to the U.S. This was then used by Trump to pressure the EU: “When the UK struck a trade deal with Washington in May, accepting Trump’s 10 per cent baseline tariff, it encouraged those EU member states seeking a settlement, especially Berlin.”

What is to be done?

It is therefore crucial for all countries to oppose Trump’s attempt to impose a unilateral, arbitrary U.S.-controlled trading system on the world. This means

  • That the WTO has to be defended against Trump’s attempts to completely overturn its framework, despite the WTO’s enormous biases and imperfections. However, this is likely to be extremely difficult given U.S. actions, such as sabotaging the disputes mechanism by since 2017 refusing to appoint judges to the WTO’s Appellate Body, rendering it inquorate and non-operational.
  • For numerous Global South countries, the U.S. is not their main trading partner, China is. Global South regions are attempting to create or strengthen regional trade agreements. Therefore, strengthening South-South cooperation and trade is crucial to bypassing U.S. attempts to impose its arbitrary, unilateral trading system on the world.
  • The deeply damaging trade agreement made by the EU with Trump is the main card used by the U.S. to attempt to impose its new trade system. The agreement again demonstrates that the traditional centre right and social democratic parties, and the dominant sectors of the European capitalist class, are unwilling and unable to defend the interests of Europe’s people and economies. This result is in line with the analysis of “Hyperimperialism,” published by the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research, which argues that the previous state of inter-imperialist competition has been replaced by one in which European capital capitulates to the U.S. on all major issues. Currently, Europe’s extreme right is gaining strongly from this situation. Both because of the importance of trade for economic development, and to prevent the extreme right from benefiting, it is crucial that progressive forces and the left in Europe firmly oppose the EU trade agreement with the U.S..

Success in defeating the new trading system arbitrarily controlled by the U.S., will require a long and hard struggle, but it is vital for international development and for all countries for the reasons outlined. Strategically, over time, this effort will become progressively easier as the U.S., due to its own tariffs, becomes a smaller part of the international trade system.