Category: Uncategorized

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

---

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

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

The U.S. and Israel failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program or achieve regime change in the first round of attacks. It is only a question of time before they attempt a second. Whether, and when, they will achieve this depends not only on Iran’s resistance but also on the solidarity and support in other countries against the U.S. and Israel. It is therefore vital that the stakes involved are understood.

The U.S. support for Israeli domination of West Asia

In their actions in Gaza and West Asia, Israel and the U.S. have shown the world their real character and plans for the region, in open contempt for the overwhelming majority of world opinion as evidenced by votes in the UN, international opinion polls, and massive international protests. Israel has carried out an openly genocidal attempt to destroy Gaza’s society, with fascist slaughter of children, women, and anyone else it chooses. These Israeli public massacres were enabled by U.S. military support.

The U.S. plan is that the tiny Israeli state—of less than 10 million, widely delegitimized around the world, and which rules by fascist methods— should be dominant in a West Asian and North African region of almost 600 million people. To achieve this, the U.S. and its Israeli client regime aims not only to massacre Palestinians but to fragment an increasing number of states in the region as carried out against Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Given Iran’s large size and population of over 90 million, Israel and the U.S. would also like to achieve this with Iran. Iran is also seen by both the U.S. and Israel as an important part of the BRICS alliance in West Asia — which the U.S. wants to weaken or demolish.

Israel and the U.S. failed in their strategic goals against Iran

Iran has been the most powerful state supporter for the Palestinian people. After the blows that Israel and the U.S. delivered against the resistance in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, they inevitably turned to Iran. But this attack did not succeed in gaining the U.S. and Israel’s strategic objectives.

The degree of damage to Iran’s nuclear programme from U.S. attacks will not become clear for some time — estimates range from relatively small to serious. But as long as Iran’s present government remains in place, this nuclear programme cannot be considered destroyed and can be rebuilt from any starting level.

The attempt by the U.S. and Israel to achieve “regime change” in Iran, with Netanyahu’s farcical attempts to present himself as a friend of the Iranian people, was a complete failure. All reports, including in the Westen media, show that Iran’s population, whatever their differences on other issues, responded to the U.S. Israeli attack with hostility and rallying around the defence of the country.

Furthermore, Iran’s missile counter-strikes on Irael did serious damage. Whatever the claimed effectiveness of Israel’s “Iron Dome” against rockets from Hamas and others, it was incapable of stopping Iran’s strategic missiles. Despite strict Israeli censorship, images from Israel, including on Western media such as CNN, revealed serious missile hits on its cities – the first time Israel’s cities have ever suffered serious damage in a war. There was no evidence that Iran’s ability to hit Israel declined during the war – Iran’s missiles were still hitting Israel on the last day of the war. Whether or not Israel was running short of defensive missiles was accurate (as claimed by U.S. pro-Israeli figures like Steve Bannon), the U.S. and Israel both clearly wanted to rapidly halt the war after the U.S. bombing attack.

The U.S. and Israel will prepare a second attack on Iran

Because the U.S. and Israel failed in their strategic objectives in the war, which they consider essential to dominating West Asia, and because of Iran’s role in BRICS, the U.S. and Israel will attack Iran again. The timing will simply be decided by the level of damage inside Israel and that done to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Victory of such a second U.S. and Israel attack would strengthen the genocidal Israeli regime, threaten all countries and forces resisting this in West Asia, and deal a major blow to BRICS. All forces in solidarity with Palestine, opposing the Israeli regime, and generally supporting progress should oppose the U.S. and Israeli preparations for a second attack on Iran.

The necessity of a nuclear free West Asia

Finally, the present situation shows the danger presented to the world by Israel’s nuclear weapons. Faced with a threat from a genocidal Israeli regime, using fascist methods in Gaza and elsewhere, countries in West Asia will inevitably conclude that the only way to deter Israel is by obtaining nuclear weapons. These countries are perfectly capable of seeing that countries which abandoned nuclear weapons programmes, such as Libya and Iraq, were attacked while those that successfully developed nuclear weapons, such as North Korea, were not. Faced with both a conventional and nuclear threat by Israel, other countries understand Israel is tiny and could be destroyed by two or three nuclear bombs. Thus, as long as Israel possesses nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before other West Asian countries acquire them. Thus, the only way forward is either, the preferred one, of a nuclear free West Asia and North Africa, or nuclear proliferation across West Asia and the great threat this presents to humanity in one of the world’s most war-torn regions.

By Vijay Prashad & Dae-Han Song

The atomic bomb has been humanity’s most dangerous creation; that the United States government used the atom bomb twice against Japan’s civilians in August 1945 can neither be forgiven nor forgotten. It is fitting that one of the first acts of the United Nations in January 1946 was establishing a commission to deal with the “Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy”. Yet, the resolution did not ban atomic weapons but simply sought to study its “problems”. Even after the grotesque demonstration in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States government was reluctant to permit the abolition of nuclear bombs. Having opened the doorway to Hell, there was no real desire to close it.

Creating the first major United Nations treaty to tackle atomic weapons took two decades. More importantly, the treaty did not ban nuclear weapons. While preventing further proliferation, it, nonetheless, allowed the then-nuclear powers – the United States (1945), the Soviet Union (1949), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and China (1964) – to keep their nuclear arsenal. When the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) came into force in 1968, Israel likely had nuclear weapons (1967). Thereafter, despite the NPT, India (1974), Pakistan (1998), and North Korea (2006) developed and tested nuclear weapons. Of all these countries, only North Korea has been pressured to de-nuclearize by the United States and its allies. If it has refused, it is because denuclearizing would lead to its annihilation.

These facts and dynamics confirm that there are only two possible paths: the universal abolition of nuclear weapons and the threat of annihilation of countries by imperialism or the inevitable proliferation of nuclear weapons across the globe.

The attack on Iran by Israel and the United States

The Israeli and US attack on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities this June was illegal; it had neither a UN Security Council resolution nor approval from the US Congress. These two allies conducted their attack in the name of nuclear non-proliferation. They pummelled Iran’s nuclear energy enrichment sites and its research facilities to set back Iran’s nuclear energy program. In fact, the attack will have the opposite effect. From Iran’s point of view, the attacks by Israel and the US make the acquisition of nuclear weapons a rational and urgent choice.

There has been no verifiable evidence that Iran has been developing a nuclear weapon. It has been a member of the NPT since the day the treaty was opened for signatures on July 1, 1968. In 1996, Iran signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty, another indication of its lack of interest in the development of nuclear weapons. Despite the pressure campaign on Iran, it has cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – according to international law and norms – to have its nuclear energy sites inspected on a regular basis. There has been no report by an international agency that confirmed Iran having a nuclear weapons program. At most, in 2015, the IAEA suggested that Iran had shown some interest in nuclear weapons before 2003 but “did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities”. Yet, despite the lack of evidence, Iran was illegally attacked without UN Security Council approval.

After the Israeli attack on Iran, the Iranian Parliament voted to suspend all cooperation with the IAEA. Large crowds gathered across Iran to call upon their government to reject the pressure on Iran and to develop a nuclear bomb to protect the country from such wars of aggression. In other words, the tempo has begun to build up in Iran for the country to hastily develop a bomb and test it openly as immunity from a regime change war.

Logic of proliferation

Mainstream media portrays countries pursuing nuclear weapons as rogue states that threaten global stability. In this narrative, authoritarian leaders pursue nuclear weapons out of an inscrutable empty obsession for self-aggrandizement as a nuclear weapon state. Yet, recent history and the US war drive make a clear case that acquiring nuclear weapons is the most rational choice for states seeking any autonomy from US domination. This is illustrated by how Libya’s denuclearization was followed by its destruction while North Korea’s nuclearization has allowed its preservation.

In 2003, the Libyan government announced that it would no longer proceed with its nuclear weapons program. The Libyan government negotiated with Western powers to no longer be treated as a “rogue state”. Between 2004 and 2006, the IAEA came to Libya and dismantled its nuclear weapons project. But despite giving up its nuclear shield, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi continued speaking out. In 2009, he went to the United Nations and spoke openly about a private conversation in which the IAEA chief Mohamed el-Baradei had told him that the IAEA could not inspect the “super-powers”. “So, is the IAEA only inspecting us?” Gaddafi asked. “If so, it does not qualify as an international organization since it is selective, just like the Security Council and the International Court of Justice”. Two years later, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) exceeded the UN Security Council mandate from resolution 1973 (2011) to create a “no-fly zone” over Libya and destroyed the Libyan state. The lesson was clear: if you give up your nuclear weapons program, you can be annihilated.

In 2006, after the US illegal war that overthrew the government of Iraq, the government of North Korea tested a nuclear weapon – the only government to do so in the 21st century. Since then, despite immense pressure, there has been reticence to openly overthrow the government in Pyongyang.

For any rational person, the example of Libya and North Korea sends a very clear message: developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them are the most effective deterrent. In fact, each stage in the development of North Korea’s nuclear program was precipitated by the US stalling in the peace process or failing to carry out its promises for peace and security made to North Korea. In effect, North Korea’s two-track process allowed it to pursue its security through the diplomatic path when possible and through nuclear deterrence when necessary.

Faced with existential crises, the world needs to shift its focus from war and destruction to healing the planet and taking care of its people. It cannot be dragged into an arms race. Thus, denuclearization is key. Yet, without the conditions for peace and disarmament, for some states, nuclear proliferation may be a matter of survival.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are On Cuba: Reflections on 70 Years of Revolution and Struggle (with Noam Chomsky), Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism, and (also with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of US Power.

Dae-Han Song is a part of the International Strategy Center and the No Cold War collective, and is an associate at the Korea Policy Institute.

This article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War.

By Vijay Prashad

By the end of the annual meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in The Hague in June 2025, it became clear that everything was about money. In fact, the final communiqué was perhaps the shortest of any NATO meeting – only five points, two about money and one to thank the Netherlands for hosting the summit. The Hague Declaration was only 427 words, whereas in the previous year, the Washington Declaration was 5,400 words and ran to 44 paragraphs. This time, there was not the granular detail about this or that threat, nor the long and detailed assessments of the war in Ukraine and how NATO supports that war without limit (“Ukraine’s future is in NATO”, the alliance said in 2024, a position no longer repeated in the brief statement of 2025). It was clear that the United States simply did not want to permit a laundry list of NATO’s obsessions. It was instead the US obsession that prevailed: that Europe increase its military spending to compensate for the US protective shield around the continent.

Having agreed to increase their military spending to 5% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the European states have created a series of problems for themselves.

The first problem is that they would have to invent the money out of their tight budgets. To raise their military expenditure to 5% of GDP would require them to reduce their social spending – in other words, to deepen the austerity policies that are already in place. In Germany, for instance, 21.1% of the population faces the risk of poverty or social exclusion. The German government, led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, has pledged €650 billion over the next five years to the military – an amount even the Financial Times finds to be “staggering”. To get to 5% of GDP, Germany, for instance, will have to raise about €144 billion per year out of reallocating budgets (austerity) and increased borrowing (debt); raising taxes is unlikely, even if these are regressive Value Added Taxes on consumption.

The second problem is that despite the disbursement of money to the military, Europe simply does not have the production lines ready to roll out tanks and missiles at the required pace. Unlike the United States, Europe began to deindustrialize its military sector after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. It will now have to spend considerable sums of money just to recover its industrial potential. Over the past few years, European military industrial firms have struggled to meet the needs of Ukraine, with the European Union unable to meet the one million artillery shells requirement in 2024. Rheinmetall, meanwhile, is only able to produce 150 Leopard 2 tanks per year, far below what European companies built during the Cold War and far below the needs of a European army if it must be on the battlefield against Russia. Neither the Eurofighter Typhoon nor the Dassault Rafale fighter jets can be produced quickly. Procurement offices across Europe are slowed down by European Union regulations and customs requirements. No rapid growth of the military will be possible.

The 5% of GDP number is more public relations than reality.

Threats

The Hague Summit Declaration says that the Euro-Atlantic alliance faces “profound security threats and challenges”. Who threatens the Euro-Atlantic? The only adversary named in the Declaration is Russia. But around the time that the NATO members met in The Hague, US President Donald Trump spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin about de-escalation in Ukraine and ending the tensions around Europe, and the Istanbul Talks continued among the various parties involved in ending the war. If there is a ceasefire in Ukraine and if Russia and Europe agree on certain security guarantees, then what is the 5% of GDP increase in military spending about?

Even if Russia ends the war in Ukraine, there are several other concerns that the NATO members have insisted define their increase in military spending. For instance, the NATO member states in Europe have allowed their military facilities to deteriorate, which from a peace standpoint is acceptable but not from one that anticipates war (the military lobby in Europe has especially pointed to the continent’s laxity around cyberattacks and weaponized Artificial Intelligence – although how rebuilding barracks will help with this is unclear). The Baltic states have sounded the alarm against a potential Russian invasion, while the instability around Iran has alerted Europe to dangers near its borders. These are some of the reasons given by war intellectuals in Europe for the necessity of increased military spending.

But by far the most important reason has nothing to do with Europe’s borders or with threats to Europe: China. In NATO’s Strategic Concept 2022, it considered China to be “a systemic challenge to Euro-American security”. But in what way is China a threat to Europe? The United States sees China as its main rival, not in military terms, but in terms of the economic dominance of the US-based multinational corporations. Europe’s countries have only benefited from Chinese investments, such as through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Of the 44 countries in Europe, 29 have signed up to the BRI – most of these countries are in Europe’s east, and two-thirds of European countries have signed Memoranda of Understanding with China for trade and development. Italy departed from the BRI in December 2023, but the other countries remain committed to the BRI project. Of the thirty-two NATO member states, twelve have an agreement with China to be part of the BRI or some other major project (Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, and Türkiye). That these states are reliant upon China’s economic buoyancy shows that they are not threatened by China, which begs the question of what threat NATO sees in China.

The habit of austerity and war grips the NATO governments, while the Global South has committed itself to peace and development. It is striking how anachronistic The Hague Declaration sounds when placed alongside the slogan of the 17th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in July 2025: Inclusive and Sustainable Global South (Sul Global Inclusivo e Sustentável).

NATO has no real threats, only expensive hallucinations.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are On Cuba: Reflections on 70 Years of Revolution and Struggle (with Noam Chomsky), Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism, and (also with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of US Power.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.