By Tom Arms | London 

Marco Rubio says the next month’s NATO summit will be one of the most consequential in history. He is right—but not for the reasons he imagines.

President Trump has spent years demanding that Europe take responsibility for its own defense. The Europeans have finally agreed. The problem is that they have also concluded that they cannot rely entirely on Washington.

That realization is likely to dominate the summit. The immediate result will be more defense spending. The long-term result may be the emergence of a European military-industrial complex capable of challenging America’s dominance of the global arms market.

If so, future historians may conclude that Donald Trump did more than persuade Europe to rearm. He persuaded it to compete.

It will not be a happy group when the 32 NATO leaders gather in Ankara on 7-8 July. The 30 European members are still angry about Donald Trump’s designs on Greenland; statements about “European civilizational decline” and his failure to consult allies before starting a war with Iran. Trump is angry that Denmark won’t handover Greenland; NATO restrictions on US airbases during the Iran War and the Alliance’s failure to join the Israeli American war on Iran.

But at the top of the agenda will be the Ukraine War and European rearmament. The Trump Administration has successfully shifted the cost of arming Ukraine from American to European shoulders with the PURL (Prioritized Ukrainian Requirements List) program. Trump plus the Ukraine War and the growing Russian threat has prompted Europe that it needs more weapons now. It takes time to build the factories and shipyards to make them, so they are by buying more from America.

The Russian threat is bonanza for the US defense industry. Between 2021 and 2015 European arms imports increased 217 percent over the previous five-year period. The estimated amount is $220 billion. European NATO is rushing to fill its defense gaps with off-the-shelf F-35s, Patriot Missile Systems, HIMARS, Apache helicopters and munitions.

But while shelling out billions to America, Europeans are also building the factories and shipyards that will build the weapons that will in the long-term replace American imports.

The big European emphasis is on drones. The Ukraine war has revealed that the future of war is unmanned vehicles in the air and on the ground. Germany—which is leading the way in increased European defense expenditure—has recently signed a deal with Ukraine for a drone manufacturing factory. France’s Renault car company is also entering the drone business and claims it will soon be producing 600 drones a month. Defense analysts believe that Europe is on track to produce millions of drones a year.

Shipyards take years to build. Current production is abysmal. The Royal Navy, for instance, has on order only seven frigates and three submarines by the end of this year. But as a total the European allies are investing $100 billion in the defense shipbuilding business. This sum is reckoned to be enough to construct 287 vessels.

Aircraft production is focused on the GCAP (Global Combat Aircraft Program)—a joint effort between Britain, Japan and Italy, Europe’s second largest military power (Britain) with Asia’s second largest economy (Japan) and Italy’s advanced aerospace industry.

Production on the GCAP prototype is expected to start this year with the first demonstration aircraft flying by 2027-28. Full is scheduled to begin in 2030 and the aircraft is expected to produce more than 300 fighter aircraft for its partner countries. The GCAP is designed to replace America’s F-35. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italy’s Leonardo Aerospace, Roberto Cingolani, stressed that one of the main benefits of the GCAP would be independence from American defense industry and political controls.

Possibly even more important, the GCAP has huge export potential. The Gulf countries and Australia have expressed a keen interest in either buying the plane or partnering in its production. This could easily lead to export sales of 1,000 planes. This would be worth an estimated $150 billion.

That is just the purchase price. Aircraft are estimated to earn up to four times their initial sale price in upgrades and maintenance. The F-35, which the GCAP is designed to replace, is estimated to earn $1.5 trillion in its lifetime.

The United States is responsible for 43 percent of the world’s arms sales—four times more than its nearest competitor. According to the State Department, last year contracted military export sales reached a record $331 billion or one percent of America’s GDP. An estimated $115 billion is estimated to have been bought by NATO allies. Europe is the biggest market for America’s weapons manufacturers by a massive margin.

By alienating his NATO allies with insults and threats and encouraging them to increase defense spending and rearm, Donald Trump is cutting his own vital defense industry out of their most profitable market. He is also creating a European defense industry that within ten years will be competing with the US in third markets.

Trump is also reducing America’s worldwide political influence. With arms sales comes upgrades and maintenance which stretch decades into the future. The upgrades include training exercises, exchanges of personnel, intelligence sharing and political influence which spills over into other export sales.

Marco Rubio may well be right. This summit could prove one of the most consequential in NATO’s history. But the lasting consequence may not be a stronger American-led alliance. It may be the birth of a European defense industry capable of standing on its own—and competing with the United States for customers around the world. Donald Trump wanted Europe to do more for its own defense. He may discover that getting what you wish for can be an expensive mistake.

Read: Observations of an Expat: Special Relationship

_____________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” and lectures on world affairs. Tom is also the author of “The Falklands Crisis,” two editions of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

The post Observations of an Expat: NATO Irony first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Nazarul Islam | USA

President Trump’s new National Security Strategy is incoherent and egotistical. Yet Europe’s elites must bear responsibility for leaving their continent in a state of vulnerability comparable to the late 1930s.

President Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy is 33 pages long. Considering the fatuous self-praise it contains, heaped upon the president himself, it was released in an unusually low-key way. Much of it is a so-called ‘Trump corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. It also contains an echo of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although Roosevelt claimed that the United States would be a ‘good neighbor’ to Latin America, he rather gave the game away when he privately admitted that Anastasio Somoza, the dictator of Nicaragua, was ‘a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch’. This is a very Trumpian way of thinking, but it is also a fantasy.

Trump thinks he can get our world’s rich and clever dictators in his pocket and yet he seems to have no idea when they are playing him. He has utterly misjudged Vladimir Putin, who clearly despises him. Putin kept his negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, waiting for three hours, then showed quite clearly that he had no intention of compromising on any of the 28 points that he himself appears to have dictated to the White House as a basis for discussion.

As far as Trump is seen by Putin, he is just a ‘useful cog’in Lenin’s phrase. It really is worth re-emphasizing how, at the G20 summit in 2019 at Osaka, Putin, to please him, at one point said how much he had been doing secretly to help Israel. Trump apparently boasted: ‘Nobody’s done as much as me to help Israel.’ Putin, putting on a straight face, reportedly said: ‘Maybe they should just name Israel after you, Donald.’ Trump, after considering this suggestion quite seriously, is said to have replied: ‘Oh no, that would be a bit too much.’

The Witkoff-Kuchner negotiations, if they merit such a term, are too extraordinary and utterly unprecedented. They are being conducted not by diplomats or statesmen but by two New York businessmen – Witkoff, a real estate mogul, and Kuchner, the president’s son-in-law – with Kirill Dimitriev, the head of the Russian Sovereign Wealth fund. It suggests that the process is not about finding a just peace, but about dividing up the spoils of war and what might be called thug diplomacy. The proposals would have legitimized Putin’s totally illegal war of aggression and thus contributed even more to the collapse of the rules-based order of the world. They were a shameless imposition of injustice based on the idea that might is right.

This National Security Strategy claims that ‘core national interests’ are the ‘sole focus of this strategy’, which is a little rich when Trump and his entourage seem to be running a protection racket presidency. ‘Nobody judges a victor’ is a favorite Russian saying, but it exactly matches Trump’s own philosophy.

To help Putin increase his power by strong-arming Ukraine towards surrender is surely not in the security interests of the United States, so it is hardly surprising that political scientists such as Eliot A. Cohen should describe Trump’s National Security Strategy as an ‘incoherent babble’. The NSS document expresses deep concern about immigration and multiculturalism in Europe, leading to ‘civilizational erasure’, yet ignores the rapidly growing threat of hostile states – Russia,

China, Iran and North Korea – co-operating against the West. Its hatred of the European Union and desire to support populist, extreme-right parties in European countries is tantamount to a call for regime change among its most reliable allies. Yet the same document expresses a hypocritical respect for the political cultures and beliefs of other countries.

If Trump really does have a ‘strategy’, it is one of unpredictability and opportunism, a combination which is in fact nothing more than short-term tactics. It might be argued that this is a response to the unreliability of Presidents Putin and Xi. During the Cold War, we may not have liked the Soviet or Chinese Communist leaders, but at least we had a rough idea of where they stood and knew that they basically kept to agreements. That is no longer true with Putin and Xi. Yet Trump, infatuated with the idea of his own deal-making abilities, believes that he can divide and rule while fragmenting the western alliance and ignoring the increasing co-operation of its enemies.

It must be acknowledged that Trump has not been alone in his miscalculations. The West has also been guilty of appeasing Russia because it is blinded by democratic confirmation bias and fails to understand the mentality of dictators. Just as the British and the French in the interwar years believed that nobody could be stupid enough to want another war like the First World War, Angela Merkel and Gerhard Schroeder were not alone in thinking that commercial dependency on Russia would prevent another conflict.

The Nord Stream pipeline became a symbol of Europe’s strategic subservience, while Britain woke up too late from its complacent slumber, during which the City of London shamelessly laundered Russian money.

All the resources that should have been devoted to defense in the UK were instead diverted into the bottomless pit of welfare dependency. Look at the latest British budget and its failure to look beyond the Channel. Extra billions have just been found for welfare at a moment when UK forces do not have the ammunition for more than a few days of combat. No wonder Putin despises us.

The first duty of any government has always been the defense of the realm, but there is still no sign of that at this moment, when the whole of Europe could be on the brink of war. European nations may well be in a more vulnerable position than in 1939.

Read: Images tell the real story

______________________

The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his articles.

The post America’s betrayal of Europe! first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Nazarul Islam | USA

People who cross over the boundaries of faith, embracing another religion, truly convert to another religious or spiritual tradition. Some are motivated to do so after experiencing a ‘fascinating, light bulb’ moment.

Switching religions in good faith involves trusting a new path, embracing transformation, and finding deeper meaning, with quotes highlighting faith as a guiding force, a personal journey of learning, and a source of inner strength, emphasizing letting go of the past for a guided future with God.

Several important themes could be attributed to the human motivations by trusting the unknown future to a known God, recognizing faith as an oasis of the heart, and understanding that change brings transformation.

The following quotes have shed light on the matter:

On Trust & Guidance:

“Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God.” – Corrie Ten Boom.

“Put your trust in Allah and let him guide you. Don’t drag the past with you.” – Quranic Wisdom.

“God always takes the simplest way.” – Albert Einstein.

On Transformation & Learning:

“Conversion brings a drive to learn. Conversion is an offering of self… in gratitude for the gift of testimony.” – Catholic Teachings.

“By changing nothing, nothing changes.” – Jim Rohn.

“Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies.” – Mother Teresa.

On Inner Strength & Faith

“Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking.” – Kahlil Gibran.

“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.” – Tertullian.

“Faith makes all things possible.” – Unknown.

On the Journey Forward:

“Your life does not get better by chance; it gets better by change.” – Jim Rohn.

“Let go, and let god.” – Unknown.

Many people are born into their religion. For them it is mostly a matter of legacy and convenience. Their belief is based on faith, not just in the teachings of the religion but also in the acceptance of that religion from their family and culture. For the person who converts, it is a matter of fierce conviction and defiance.

Our belief is based on a combination of faith and logic because we need a powerful reason to abandon the traditions of our families and community to embrace beliefs foreign to both. Conversion is a risky business because it can result in losing family, friends and community support.

A new study from UK’s Leeds Beckett University has shared that almost half of them were motivated convert because they are turned off by the actions of people belonging to their own religion they are rejecting.

The study, by psychologists Dr. Glenn Williams and Dr. Leonie O’Dwyer, surveyed 118 people across the world, exploring how, and why, people convert to another religious or spiritual tradition. The findings are being presented this week at the sixth International Conference on Religion and Spirituality in Society in Washington DC, USA.

Dr. Williams has further explained: “About Two-thirds (65%) of those surveyed reported making the change in their belief system after experiencing a ‘flash, lightning moment’ in which it had felt like the right thing to do. For the two-thirds of those surveyed, this life changing event also took place after a considerable period of reading about the chosen belief system and becoming more acquainted with what it entailed.”

Almost half (44%) of those who took part in the study reported that they made the change because they were turned off by the views or the actions of people who belonged to the religion or spiritual tradition that the participants had rejected.

Other reasons attributed to switching to a new faith include a common urge to find meaning or purpose in one’s life. Moreover, interpersonal experiences of connecting with other people by talking to a scholarly person who had shared the high ideals, expectations and rewards about the chosen belief system. Again, this change could have been resulted through participation at a religious congregation event, with like-minded people.

Dr. Williams, the Chair of Department has commented: “This is a particularly hard-to-reach group of people and we are very pleased to have been able to obtain a cross-section of people’s experiences in this worldwide survey.  Usually, studies in this field have tended to have a focus on people converting to just one religion; whereas we have been able to get people from across different belief systems to take part in our study.

“We have had participation from those who identify as having switched to Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Paganism and the experiences that they have reported have been fascinating. The age range of people who took part was very diverse, ranging from 18 years all the way to 79 years. We asked participants to respond to a comprehensive questionnaire regarding their motivations for converting, the sources of stress they faced, and the effects of conversion on their wellbeing.”

“One intriguing finding that has emerged is—the more often and more intensely a person draws on their new belief system, the better their level of wellbeing is. This is particularly true in relation to an individual’s ability to derive a sense of purpose in life and feeling better able to cope. It really does seem as if being fully immersed in a spiritually or religiously-focused belief system is pivotal for the wellbeing of the particular group of people we have surveyed.”

The challenges of making the shift were particularly pronounced for some survey respondents. The most common source of stress was feeling wary about revealing one’s beliefs to other people, which was reported by 45% of the people surveyed. This related to another stress factor – that of feeling driven to hide one’s beliefs and feeling that one is not being genuine – which was experienced by nearly 40% of those studied.

This in turn related to a further source of stress for respondents: having to hear family members, colleagues and friends making negative comments about the newly-adopted belief system. One third of the sample believed that they had made sacrifices by changing their belief system and this appears to be connected to feeling socially isolated because of the decision they have made.

Despite these challenges, many survey respondents believed they had made the change for the better. Common perceived benefits included participants feeling that they have a sense of purpose in life, that they have better tools available for coping with life stresses and that they deal with people in a more peaceful way than previously.

Dr. Williams further added: “We are only beginning this journey into unearthing the psychological mechanisms behind the phenomenon of spiritual or religious conversion and we are keen to continue our work to get even deeper insights into the psychological needs of those who convert.

In the coming months, Dr. Leonie O’Dwyer will be interviewing a sample of people who have taken part in the initial survey to listen to, and learn from, those who made the shift by adopting a new religious or spiritual belief system.”

The research team is also inviting new participants to an extension of their global survey. To be included in this, participants must not have taken part in the previous survey held in January-March 2016 and they need to identify as having changed religious or spiritual beliefs from that of their upbringing.

This can also include conversions to, or from, atheism, agnosticism, humanism or any other belief system that might be understood, as a spiritual or moral philosophy.

Research on conversion has demonstrated that, long after such an experience, a convert tends to confuse what actually happened in light of everything that occurs in its aftermath.

That is to say, years later, the accounts people tell, to both themselves and others, have been slanted by all they have learned, thought, and experienced in the interim.

Religious conversion evidently transforms not just the soul but also facial appearances. “What if I’m wrong?” This is the question that quickly runs through the mind of a skeptic. It’s important to go over the arguments and thought process time and time again, reaffirming that it’s logical, sound, evidenced, and is a proper conclusion to our observations and science. This is the seed that will eventually grow into a more proper faith.

There is an uncertainty there. Anxiety, worries, a lack of confidence in one’s beliefs and views. The “leap” into a new worldview is always one that starts with rocky ground and unsteady footing. It has to, by its very nature.

Read: Our Failure To Address Autism

____________________

The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his articles.

The post Crossing over to a new religion first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• The first two closures seem like a triumph of cultural and religious values—but the third strikes at a deeper concern: our growing disconnect from knowledge

By Khurram Riaz

In European cities where Pakistani communities grow, three types of shops gradually shut down: alcohol stores, pork-based food outlets… and bookstores. The first two closures seem like a triumph of cultural and religious values—but the third strikes at a deeper concern: our growing disconnect from knowledge.

At first glance, these changes appear commendable. Avoiding haram reflects religious identity and moral discipline. But the closing of bookstores reveals a painful irony: we reject physical impurity while tolerating intellectual poverty.

Bookstores don’t close because landlords raise rents—they close when no one buys books. When a community stops reading, its ability to think, question, and evolve declines. Children grow up in a vacuum of ideas. The mind becomes stagnant.

As a nation, Pakistanis abroad have succeeded materially—owning homes, running businesses, sending money home. But intellectually, we have failed to migrate. We didn’t carry with us our thinkers, poets, or scholars—we left our books behind.

We teach our kids how to earn, but not how to reflect. We teach them to avoid alcohol and pork, but not to embrace ilm. Religion becomes ritual; education becomes transactional. Thought dies in silence.

When bookstores close, societies suffer:

Domain Decline

Religion Becomes surface-level

Education Lacks critical thinking

Language Weakens (Urdu, Arabic, etc.)

Parenting focuses on money, not minds

Society Shifts from rational to reactive

To reverse this, we must:

• Buy and read books at home
• Make libraries part of family life
• Encourage dialogue, not just preaching
• Add intellectual sessions in mosques
• Celebrate writers as we do businessmen

The true meaning of Islamic migration is not just avoiding haram foods—it’s carrying forward our tradition of thought. Islam began with the word “Iqra”—Read. If our presence shuts down bookstores, then we’ve lost that message.

Let’s not let bookshops die in the shadow of halal meat stores. Let’s ensure that wherever Pakistanis go, knowledge flourishes, not fades.

Read: How Reading Shapes the Brain

___________________

The writer is Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) focused in Electrical and Electronics Engineering from EME College, NUST.

Courtesy: LinkedIn

The post Shops Halt as Pakistanis Land in Europe first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms

The possibility of a “Big Split” between Europe and America has taken another giant leap forward with a take-it-or-leave-it Ukraine plan from President Trump.

In addition, there are dangers of widening chasms opening up between EU and European members of NATO.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and chief negotiator Steve Witkoff were expected in London this week for talks on Ukraine with key European leaders. But at the last minute they pulled out, saying that the president was tired of negotiations and demanded that all sides accept an agreement hammered out in Moscow between Witkoff and Putin.

The proposal on the table is basically a sell-out to Putin: International recognition of the annexation of Crimea; defacto control of Eastern Ukraine; Ukraine banned from NATO and the end of sanctions. Ukraine gets undefined “robust security guarantees” the return of small slice of the Kharkiv Oblast and undefined sum to rebuild the country. The US gets a minerals deal with Ukraine; operating rights for Zaporizhia nuclear power plant and increased cooperation with Russia, especially in the energy and industrial sectors.

Trump’s proposal makes no effort to uphold any principle of international law. It turns back the diplomatic clock to pay homage to the pre-war axiom might is right.

Vladimir Putin must be turning somersaults. If this proposal is accepted by Zelensky and his European backers the Russian president will have won. As German Chancellor said, if the Russian-American agreement goes ahead, Putin can say: “I can afford such aggression. I will prevail and I will achieve my goals.”

President Trump has threatened to “wash his hands” and move onto other foreign policy issues if his proposal is not accepted. But he has not defined his hand wash. Does it mean that he will stop all aid to Ukraine? That appears the most likely scenario as he illogically blames Volodomyr Zelensky for the war and the current failure of his peace efforts. If that is the case then the burden of defending Ukraine falls on ill-prepared and ill-equipped Europe. Europe and the UK are left with an unpalatable choice: Abandon their principles and stay with the US and let Putin win. Alternatively take the moral but riskier and expensive option of going it alone and continuing to back Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Politics requires a stiff dose of pragmatism. But it also needs a moral center.

Countries such as Viktor Orban’s Hungary and Robert Fico’s Slovakia will almost certainly embrace the plan and undermine any efforts for a united EU front. They are charter members of the populist leaders’ club which now includes Trump.

The Baltic states—Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—along with Poland and Romania will lead the pack in opposing the plan. They have a long and painful history with Russia. Do not underestimate the influence of Poland whose Prime Minister Donald Tusk has become a powerful voice in European circles.

Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Italy are the big EU voices alongside the commission itself led by Ursula von der Leyen. So far they have been loud in their condemnation of Russia and supplied weapons and political support to Ukraine. But more than most EU members tend to the pragmatic as they have to consider wider international implications.

Then there is Britain. The UK was an early and strong supporter of Ukraine and the recent problems with the US has enabled London to revive some of its influence in Europe. And despite Brexit, the EU has remained Britain’s biggest trading partner. But at the same time, the UK’s strongest political, military and intelligence links are transatlantic.

Sir Keir Starmer has adamantly denied that he must choose between Brussels and Washington. He wants to be the bridge between America and Europe. In recent months he has been reasonably successful at doing just that. But with an increasingly mercurial Trump in the White House that bridge has become more of a dangerous tightrope.

Ukraine does not exist in a vacuum, and increasingly other factors are playing a major role in splitting America and Europe. There are Trump’s threats to the sovereignty of Canada and Greenland. And, of course, there are the tariffs.

April 2—or, as Trump says, “Liberation Day—saw the imposition of 20 percent tariffs on all EU goods and services and 25 percent on cars, aluminum and steel. The markets quickly crashed and Trump was forced to lower the all goods tariff to ten percent but for only 90 days to allow time for trade negotiations which usually take years.

Trump says he is looking forward to meeting European leaders at the funeral of Pope Francis on Saturday. It will be a somber occasion for more than one reason. The next opportunity for the American president to meet with his increasingly frustrated and angry allies will be at the NATO summit at The Hague on 24-26 June. This gathering will almost coincide with the end of the 90-day suspension of the higher tariffs.

World Review

Pakistan is a water-stressed country. It is totally dependent on the Indus Valley Basin for survival.

That is why it has threatened war in response to India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty following the killing of 26 Indian tourists in Kashmir.

The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty is considered the most successful treaty of its kind in the world. Probably in the history of the world. It has held through three wars and numerous skirmishes between two countries whose religious difference mean that they truly detest each other.

There are six rivers in the Indus Basin (Indus, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, Jhelum and Sutlej). India administers the three eastern rivers and Pakistan the three western rivers. Both countries use the network for transport, drinking water, hydro-electricity, agriculture and industry.

But here is the rub. The main headwaters for the Indus Basin are in India which gives it the power to control the flow of water downstream. And Pakistan needs the water more than India.

Ninety percent of Pakistanis live in the Indus Basin. The rivers provide 90 percent of the irrigation water needed for Pakistani farms which provide 24 percent of the country’s GDP and employ 34 percent of the labor force. Eighty percent of the water needed for domestic and industrial use comes from the basin and nearly a quarter of Pakistan’s electricity is hydro based.

Economists reckon that Indian withdrawal from the treaty would lead to a flight of capital from economically hard-pressed Pakistan and the destruction of the country’s economy. Even worse, it raises a specter of a war for survival between the regions two nuclear powers.

___________________

The Easter Bunny played a center-stage diplomatic role this week. When Donald Trump announced the death of Pope Francis this week he stood next to an actor dressed as the Easter bunny.

The juxtaposition was symbolic. Trump hated the Pope and wanted to demonstrate this by belittling the announcement of his death.

He has proven form for such occasions. When the widely-admired Senator John McCain died, Congress directed that America’s flags be lowered to half-mast. McCain and Trump were enemies. Trump ordered that the White House flag stay up.

Donald Trump and Pope Francis could not have been more different. The Pope lived a life of poverty. Trump lives a life of gilded ostentatiousness.

There was also policy substance behind the stylistic differences—mostly on the issue of immigration and migrants. The centerpiece of Trump’s first election campaign was a “big beautiful wall” to keep out illegal immigrants.

On a trip to Mexico, Pope Francis said: “A person who thinks only about building walls…and not bridges, is not a Christian.”

Pope Francis believed that Christian love required compassionate care for migrants. Trump called them “rapists, murderers and terrorists.”

After Trump’s second election victory, the Pope gave a television interview in which he said it would be a “disgrace” if Trump implemented his mass deportation plans. He followed that up with a letter to America’s Catholic bishops in which he said: “I exhort all the faithful of the Catholic Church not to give in to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters.”

The Pope’s last visitor before he died was Vice President JD Vance, himself a Catholic convert. What the two men discussed is not known. But it was reported that after the audience JD Vance was sent to a Vatican cardinal to be lectured on the responsibilities of a Christian leader.

____________________

South American farmers are delighted with the Sino-American trade war. Especially those in Argentina and Brazil.

Chinese cooks love their soybeans. They use it for soy sauce, tofu production, soybean oil and a wide range of seasonings. But Chinese farmers don’t seem to be able to grow enough. Eighty-five percent of all the soy beans used in China are imported and nearly a quarter of them come from America.

That quarter earned American farmers $12.8 billion last year—nearly ten percent of the value of all US exports to China. China was the main market for America’s soy bean farmers. But the 125 percent counter-tariff that Beijing imposed on American imports has locked the farmers out of this lucrative market and threatens to devastate American agriculture.

But it is a boon for soy bean farmers in Brazil and Argentina. The two countries between them produce 52 percent of the world’s soy bean crop. Forty percent comes from Brazil alone. And with American farmers locked out of China, the prices have gone up ten percent since the trade war began and are expected to continue to rise.

This is the second time American farmers have been hit by a Trump-induced Sino-American trade war. There was another during Trump’s first administration and South American farmers benefitted from that one as well.

That trade war also made Beijing more wary of its dependence on American agriculture. Since 2017 it has been investing in warehousing, railroads and port facilities in Brazil to move more of that country’s soybeans onto Chinese ships. This investment is now paying off for and making it less likely that it will shift its soy bean purchases back to the US if and when tariffs are lifted.

So what happens to the American farmers? The US Soybean Export Council and the American Soybean Association are trying to shift exports to India, Mexico and Egypt. They are also investigating the possibility of soy beans as a biofuel. But it is estimated that it will take at least ten years before the farmers see any tangible results. American farmers, it should be added, are at the core of Trump’s MAGA base.

__________________

Saudi Arabia and Iran are long-standing traditional enemies. It was not surprising therefore, that the Saudis welcomed Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2017.

But eight years later, Riyadh has reversed its position and welcomed Trump’s offer to negotiate a new deal with Tehran.

So what has happened in the intervening period? Basically, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has decided to move the Kingdom out of its Islamic hermit shell, reduce its dependence on oil and diversify the economy to become a high-tech and tourism hub. To do that he needs regional peace which means eliminating the Iranian threat through diplomacy.

Saudi-Iranian relations began to seriously warm up in 2023 when the Chinese brokered a restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries after a seven-year rupture.

This week the kingdom’s foreign ministry officially welcomed talks between the US and Iran which it said would enhance “peace in the region and the world.” Taking, Riyadh’s lead, other Arab states have issued similar statements.

Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu, however, remains committed to the strategy of an attack to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities and destroy its bomb and missile-manufacturing capabilities. But President Trump is holding him back at the behest of Saudi Arabia—his other close regional ally.

However, as always, Trump could quickly change direction. He has already said that if current talks fail to result in the dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear weapons program then “all Hell will break loose.”

_____________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democratic Voice and the author of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

Read: Observations of an Expat: MAGA V. Liberal Elite

The post Observations of an Expat: The Big Split first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• To most Americans, the war in Ukraine “is a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”

By Tom Arms

Europe has missed a trick. Ukraine was primarily a European problem. Russia was threatening European security, and by extension, the NATO alliance as a whole. But to most Americans the war in Ukraine, as Neville Chamberlain said in 1938 about Czechoslovakia—“is a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”

But America coughed up billions. That is not to say that European countries—including the UK—have not dug deep. Since 2022 Europe has given slightly more than the US– $65.9 billion compared to $65 billion from Washington. Another $8.59 billion has come from non-European countries Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

But the Biden Administration was far and away the single biggest contributor propping up Ukraine. With Trump in the White House that prop is likely to be kicked away—possibly as soon as this weekend’s Munich Security Conference.

Europeans admit that their over-reliance on the American military umbrella has made them complacent about their security. Since the end of the Cold War defense budgets have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves. Germany, for instance was in 1985 spending 2.87 percent of its GDP on defense. When Russia invaded Ukraine the figure had been cut by more than half to 1.33 percent.

Budget cuts meant cuts in troop numbers. 478,000 (1985 figure) in Germany to 183,000 in 2022. Britain went from 334,000 to 153,000 over the same period.

But more importantly was a drop in investment in defense industries. Troop levels can be boosted relatively easily. But researching the latest weapons, building a factory and assembly line and starting production takes time. 1985 figures for European investment in defense industries are difficult to find, but since the invasion of Ukraine there is a clear recognition that it was not enough. In 2021 the figure was $222 billion and in 2024 it had jumped to $330 billion.

Defense investment, however, is still inadequate. Planners reckon that Europeans need to invest an additional $550 billion over the next decade to replace American weapons in Europe. But even worse, it would take 5-10 years before the tanks, drones and howitzer shells start rolling off the assembly line in anything approaching sufficient numbers.

There is a solution: Buy American. At least until Europeans have rebuilt their defense industries and boosted troop levels.

One must report, however, that American defense industries are also struggling to meet Ukraine’s needs. But—a technological lead, larger industrial base and market and excellent collaboration between government and private industry—means that the US is much better placed to ramp up production.

On top of that, the current transactionally-minded US president thinks almost exclusively in dollars and cents. It should be possible to persuade Donald Trump to look upon Ukraine and Europe as a cash cow rather than a money pit. He has, for instance, already sounded out President Volodomyr Zelensky on exchanging Ukraine’s $500 billion worth of rare earth minerals for American weaponry.

If Europe—which includes the UK—is to act it must do so immediately. This weekend 60 world leaders are meeting at the Bayerische Hof Hotel for the annual Munich Security Conference. Ukraine is top of the agenda. The American delegation is led by US Vice President JD Vance. He is scheduled to meet President Zelensky.

Meanwhile, Trump’s special envoy on Ukraine, General Keith Kellogg, will be chairing fringe meetings at which he will privately suggest peace proposals before travelling to Kyiv for more talks with Zelensky. Trump has said he will meet Vladimir Putin in Saudi Arabia “in the near future.”

The run-up to the Munich Conference has involved a 90-minute telephone conversation between Trump and Putin. Trump and Zelensky have had a 60-minute phone chat, although diplomatic sources fear that there is a real danger of the Ukrainians—and Europeans—being side-lined.

On Wednesday possible peace parameters emerged when Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth told reporters that Ukraine’s hopes of a return to pre-2014 borders was “unrealistic” and that the US would oppose Ukrainian membership of NATO.

As for the rest of Europe, Hegseth was quite clear: “Europe must take over assistance to Ukraine as the US focuses on its own borders… I want to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”

The Europeans, meanwhile, have started drawing red lines for any negotiations on Ukraine. A joint statement by the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Poland, and Italy vowed to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and made it clear that “Ukraine and Europe must be part of any negotiations.”

The problem is that the European red line could be dismissed by Putin and Trump as no more than pale pink because of Europe’s inability to back words with deeds.

At the moment Putin appears to have won. His clearly stated aims were to stop the eastward expansion of NATO; weaken the Transatlantic link; reduce Ukraine to a vassal state and position Russia for expansion elsewhere in the Black Sea region, Eastern Europe and the Baltics. He has shown that Pax Americana has been replaced with Might is Right.

World Review

It is becoming increasingly clear that the only thing standing between Trump and unfettered power is the American judicial system.

His spineless acolytes in the Republican Party control both houses of Congress and the geriatric Democratic Party appears to be sinking under a sea of Executive Orders.

The courts, however, have acted. So far they have ordered the administration to lift its funding freeze on USAID and the salaries of thousands of federal employees.

The question now is: What will Trump do? Legally, he should abide by the court’s ruling and—if he is determined to get his way—appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, where, he hopes, the 6-3 conservative majority will rule in his favour.

But that is not Trump’s way, and Supreme Court support is not a given.

The signs are that Trump will simply ignore the court rulings and either carry on and appeal or—even more likely—carry on and not bother to appeal. If he takes either approach Donald Trump will have created a major constitutional crisis.

The power of the judicial system relies on the two other branches of government respecting and accepting the court’s judgements. It is called checks and balances and THE RULE OF LAW.

There is nothing in the US constitution which gives enforcement powers to the judiciary—except the legal principle of contempt of court. If Donald Trump ignores court rulings then he can be held in contempt and detained or fined until such time as he “purges the contempt.”

This is not a criminal law. It is not a civil law. It is the only weapon that the courts have to enforce their judgements. It was used against Trump in 2022 when he was fined $10,000 a day for failing to provide subpoenaed documents in his fraud trial.

The same law could also be applied to Elon Musk and his DOGE team.

________________________

A person cannot be pardoned for contempt of court. The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity does not apply to contempt of court. So, where is the brave judge willing to take on Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the MAGA crowd?

As Germany’s federal election approaches the two front runners—the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Alternativ fur Deutschland (AfD) are battling for the young men’s vote.

Increasingly it is the 18-30-year-old men who are playing the kingmaker’s role in Western democracies. And they are swinging further and further to the right.

In the 2024 British general election, young men played a vital role in winning five parliamentary seats for Reform. 12.9 percent of men aged 18 to 30 voted Reform compared to just 5.9 percent of the women.

In the States it was disgruntled young men who dunnit for Trump. Sixty percent of the young male vote opted for Donald Trump, according to an Associated Press survey. Trump attracted only 20 percent of the women in the same age group.

Trump was especially popular with poorly educated young white men, but he also won half of the young male Latino vote and a third of the African-American young men.

In Germany the young male vote played a major role in the AfD winning 16 percent of the vote in the European elections and 31 percent of the vote in elections in Saxony and Brandenburg.

Why? The reasons are many, varied and overlapping, but at the top of the list is the fear that wokeism—both gender and ethnically-based—is marginalizing men in today’s world.

Other factors are globalism and the decline in manufacturing which was the traditional main employer of poorly educated young men. Add to that a housing crisis which has raised prices to the unaffordable level across the Western world and a fear of cultural erosion through immigration.

Finally—in Germany– the passage of time means that that country’s Nazi past is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the current generation.

Mainstream parties are perceived as having done more to exacerbate the problems for young men with their support for diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) programs than to listen to their problems. The gap has opened. The populist far right is filling it.

______________________

Austrian coalition talks have collapsed. It is now likely that a fresh election will be called and, if it is, Western Europe could see the creation of its first far-right government.

It was inevitable that the coalition talks between the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) of Herbert Kickl and the Centre-right Conservative People’s Party (OVP) of Karl Nehammer would end in tears.

For a start, the two party leaders hate each other. Then there is the fact that Kickl wanted the talks to fail. Failure meant another round of elections and opinion polls show that the FPO is expected to increase its share of the vote.

In weeks of talks, Kickl showed up for only seven hours. And in those few hours made demands that he knew were completely unacceptable. He began by demanding the FPO control of the finance and interior ministries as well as the chancellorship for himself.

Then he insisted that Austria lift sanctions against Russia and start deporting asylum seekers. The real crunch, however, was his demand that if the European court, commission or parliament ever ruled against the Austrian government, the ruling would be ignored.

The OVP’s red lines, meanwhile, were “the absence of Russian influence” and the insistence that Austria remain a “reliable partner to the European Union.”

President Alexander Van der Bellen does not want Kickl and the FPO. He tried to persuade the OVP, social democrats and liberals to form an anti-Kickl government but that failed. It looks like he has no alternative to calling fresh elections with Kickl and the FPO in pole position.

_______________________

Turkey has joined the elite—and increasingly overcrowded – club of 21st century space racers. Last month it sent its first astronaut to the International Space Station and this week the minister for industry and technology announced that Turkey plans to send a rocket to the moon within ten years.

Turkey is not alone in its lunar ambitions. India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Europe, Russia and, of course, China and America have all unveiled plans to fly to the moon and beyond.

So far five countries have landed on the moon: India, Japan, Russia, China and the United States. America is the only country to put a man on the moon.

Israel’s space program is run by a private company and uses Elon Musk’s SpaceX rockets to carry their satellites and lunar modules. Its first attempt at an unmanned moon landing—in 2017—ended in failure but they plan to try again in 2027.

India has had two successful unmanned moon landings—in 2019 and 2023 and Prime Minister Narendra Modi says India wants to land a man on the moon by 2040.

Last month Japan enjoyed a major success by landing a rover vehicle on the moon within a 100 meter target area. It is collaborating with the US on a moon orbiting station which will serve as a launch pad for missions to Mars.

Read: Türkiye’s Place in Space: Past, Present, and Future

The European Space Agency is collaborating with NASA to construct a lunar cargo vessel which will be used to ferry cargo, scientific equipment and minerals between Earth and the moon. The ESA has plans to start mining the moon’s minerals as early as next year. It is also contributing to the Gateway space station which is the name of the staging post to Mars.

Russia and China have a joint program to build an international lunar research station by 2035. China wants is planning their first manned trip to the moon in 2030. Russia has suffered several recent setbacks and the Ukraine War is hitting space program budgets. However, Moscow, is now saying that 2035 is likely to be the year that the first Russian Cosmonaut stands on the moon’s surface.

The next person to step onto the surface of the moon is expected to be an American woman. She may be on the moon as early as next year. NASA wants to set up a manned base on the moon—The Artemis Project—by 2030.

But the most ambitious space explorer is billionaire Elon Musk. So far he has tried and failed to reach the moon. But his real space target is the red planet. Musk says he will fly to Mars by 2030 and envisions that by 2054 he will have established a self-sustaining Martian city of 1 million earthlings.

_____________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and the author of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

Read: Observations of an Expat: Death of the Two-State Solution

The post Observations of an Expat – Ukraine: Europe Missed A Trick first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms

It’s time for the Special Relationship to be extracted from the diplomatic cupboard and dusted off.

Britain needs it. Europe needs it. And, although they are less keen to admit that they need help from any quarter, the US needs it to become the cornerstone of a new Transatlantic Alliance.

For years the UK shared the “Special Relationship” tag with France and Germany. In fact, after Brexit, Britain probably slipped into third place in Washington’s relationship arrangements.

But French President Emmanuel Macron has politically castrated himself with the recent political elections and the dull and dreary German Chancellor Olaf Scholz fails to inspire either the Germans or the wider world community

Britain may no longer be an EU power, but Sir Keir Starmer’s landslide victory gives him latitude at home and kudos abroad.

He is helped by a foreign secretary who has the potential to go down in history as one of the best in modern times. David Lammy wasted no time in stamping his image on British foreign policy. Almost before Sir Keir had finished his acceptance speech, Lammy was on the plane for Paris, Berlin, Warsaw and Kyiv. This week he was at the prime minister’s elbow for the NATO summit in Washington where Sir Keir was the only NATO leader awarded a tete a tete with President Joe Biden.

Lammy also has extensive American connections. The new foreign secretary has worked, studied and lived in the US. He has family in America and his father is buried in Texas.

But what if Donald Trump returns to the White House? A prospect which appears increasingly likely as Joe Biden ages with every passing day. Lammy is on record as labelling Trump a “woman-hating neo-Nazi sympathizing sociopath” and a “profound threat to international order” as well as a racist and a fascist.

But both Sir Keir and Lammy have said that the transAtlantic relationship remains the “bedrock” of British foreign policy. And in a recent speech at the conservative US think tank the Hudson Institute, Lammy said that Trump’s comments on European security had been “misunderstood.” He has also gone out of his way recently to meet senior Trump foreign policy advisers.

Unfortunately, Trump’s negative policy towards Europe is based on good, sound politics. It is a reflection of a growing US isolationism which in turn is a reaction to series of foreign policy reversals. That feeling of being hard done by the rest of the world (especially its European allies) will continue regardless of whomever win the November election.

To allay European fears, much was made of this week’s decision to base a fresh batch of American intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Germany. But you need to read the fine print. The missiles are not being offered on a permanent basis as they were in the 1970s and 1980s. No, they are a stopgap measure until the European members of NATO can manufacture and deploy their own intermediate-range systems.

So, the 75th NATO birthday celebrations in Washington, were also the scene for the signing of a letter of intent by Germany, France, Italy and Poland to develop their own long-range missiles which will be called the European Long-Range Approach. In addition, the European members of NATO have all agreed to commit 20 percent of their growing defence budgets to manufacturing new weapons. European NATO sees the writing on the wall and is acting accordingly.

But none of these European moves will replace America’s strategic nuclear umbrella. Neither would the nuclear arsenals of France and Britain. In fact, Britain’s nuclear deterrent is totally reliant on US technology. And that reliance is part of the special relationship which may keep America committed to Europe even if Trump withdraws the US from NATO.

Americans may not feel particularly warm towards other Europeans. But with the British they share a common language, legal system, intelligence links, and alliances through two world wars, investments, educational links and a long, long history. On top of that, Donald Trump, has to protect his Scottish golf course. Britain will almost certainly continue to nestle under the American nuclear umbrella, partly because of the existing nuclear links and partly because of history.

Britain, for its part, may not want European workers or to have to share sovereignty with Brussels. But it recognizes that it is in its interest to belong to a common European defence alliance.  And that offering its nuclear weapons and other military hardware to the EU could lead to other as yet unspecified benefits.

If a Trumpian America withdrew from NATO, or reduced its commitment, then Britain could become the link that keeps Europe nestling under the American nuclear umbrella. America would have an alliance with Britain. Britain would have an alliance with America. If Europe was attacked then Britain would be treaty-bound to come to its defense. If Britain was attacked then America would be treaty-bound to come to the defense of Britain, and, by association, Europe.

It is not as good as the current North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But it is better than the nothing about which too many are talking.

World Review

Patriots for Europe is a political oxymoron designed to confuse the public about its true intentions. It stands alongside other political oxymorons such as The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, aka North Korea, which is neither democratic, a republic or run for the benefit of the North Korean people.

Patriots for Europe is a new political grouping in the European Parliament. And the political reality is that none of the national political parties that belong to this group feel the least patriotic leanings towards the European concept.

In fact, they are all Euro-skeptics whose main mission in life is to undermine the concept of a united Europe and drag their countries back to the 19th century when Europe was a patchwork of feuding nationalistic states.

The intellectual driving force behind Patriots for Europe is Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. His Fidesz Party was booted out of the center-right European People’s Party in 2022 for being too right-wing and has been politically homeless ever since.

Soon after the announcement of the results for the recent European Parliament elections—a victory for the far-right—Orban flew to Vienna to launch Patriots for Europe alongside Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis and former Austrian Interior Minister Herbert Kickl. Their stated manifesto was: weaken the EU, focus on European cultural identity, introduce stronger anti-immigration measures and oppose the EU’s climate change policy which aims to make Europe carbon neutral by 2050.

The core trio quickly attracted far-right groups from across the EU. By the end of this week it had grown to 84 seats drawn from 12 member states. This places it in third place behind the center-right European People’s Party (176 seats) and the center-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (139 seats). There are a total of 720 seats in the European Parliament.

Conspicuous by its absence from the new party is Germany’s AfD (Alternative for Deutschland). Recent Nazi-related scandals have put the far-right Germans beyond the pale even for the likes of Viktor Orban.

A catch was France’s National Rally (RN). It achieved a major victory in the European Parliamentary elections with 30 of France’s 79 MEPs. National Rally then went on to place a disappointing—and surprising—third in French parliamentary elections.

RN’s Jordan Bardella had expected to be French Prime Minister. He has had to settle for the job of President of Patriots for Europe. He secures the job as leader of the national party with the largest number of MEPs in the new political group.  He will be using the parliamentary building at Strasbourg as a platform from which to attack France’s left and center in preparation for the French presidential elections in 2027.

________________________________

“I am a reformist principilist”, declares Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s newly-elected president.

But what is a “reformist principilist”? According to Pezeshkian it is someone who is loyal to the principles of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, but wants to liberalize/reform the principles of that revolution.

That means, for a start, swearing allegiance to Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khameini, which he did throughout his campaign. In fact, in his victory speech Pezeshkian praised the “guidance” of Khameini which he described as a major factor in his electoral success.

Khameini, for his part, made a rare post-election speech in which he acknowledged that some Iranians dislike his regime. He then added: “We listen to them and we know what they are saying.”

The question is: What is Khameini hearing and what will he allow Pezeshkian to do about it?

The new president campaigned on a pledge to rein in the morality police who had been arresting women who refused to wear head scarves. He also wanted to improve relations with the West and resume talks on Iran’s nuclear development.

The headscarves issue is likely to be a win for the protesters. The government is unlikely to make a song and dance about it, but they will probably inform the morality police to turn a blind eye to the absence of scarves.

An Iranian initiative to resume talks on nuclear development may also be on the cards. This is because, according to US intelligence, the Iranians have recently slowed down their race to develop nuclear weapons. Thus there is more scope for talks on time limits and associated issues.

Wider issues with the West are more problematic. Iran has locked itself into the position of third wheel in an anti-Western alliance with China and Russia. It would be difficult to extricate itself—even if it wanted to.

At a recent summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, acting president Mohammed Mokhbar delivered a “personal message” from Ayatollah Khameini to Vladimir Putin assuring him that Iran’s relations with Moscow are “deep and unchangeable” and would remain strong regardless of who won the election. He added that the Iranian-Russian axis had changed “the power equations in the world.”

Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis are another major source of friction. At the moment, US-backed Israel is fighting a shadow war with Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. But Iran’s support for Hezbollah provides Tehran with a political and military reach that spreads in an arc all the way across the Middle East and insures its position as regional super power. No Iranian leader is likely to relinquish that power willingly.

_______________________________________________

Kazakhstan was briefly in the headlines this month. It deserves more attention.

The reason for its appearance in the spotlight was a summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at the Kazakh capital of Astana.

The reason that it deserves more attention is manifold. A good starting point is its relations with Russia. It was part of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire before that. Russia’s main space facilities are at Kazakhstan’s Baikonur Cosmodrome. About 15 percent of the population are ethnic Russians.

Russia controls the main pipelines through which Kazakh oil and travel to world markets. Moscow is heavily invested in Kazakhstan’s important mineral-based industries, especially the increasingly significant uranium deposits. Kazakhstan is the world’s 11th largest producer of oil and gas and is also rich in bauxite, copper, gold, iron ore and coal.

The Kazakh-Russian border is 4,500 miles long, which makes it second only to the US-Canadian border. Trade between the two countries reached $27 billion in 2023. On top of all the above, the current president, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, owes his job to Russian intervention in 2022.

But the icing on the cake is that Russia’s ally “without limits”—China—is the second biggest investor in the world’s largest landlocked country and their annual trade last year topped Russia’s at $37 billion.

Besides all these links between Kazakhstan and its two giant neighbors, President Tokayev is trying to improve relations with the West. He has remained neutral on the issue of Ukraine and maintained oil production at record high levels to try and keep down world energy prices.

Tokayev’s scorecard, however, is a bit iffy on the issue of preventing the export of military equipment to Russia. Kazakhstan regularly allows dual-use equipment to make its way to the Russian forces in Ukraine. For its part, Western governments are prepared to turn a blind eye to Kazakhstan’s sanctions busting. They know that Tokayev is walking a diplomatic tightrope, and that a slip in their direction could result in Russian intervention which the West could little if anything about.

__________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and the author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

Read: Observations of an Expat: How Did We Get Here?

The post Observations of an Expat: Special Relationship first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Was there one overwhelming event or was it a combination of social, political, technological, religious and military factors?

Prof. Dr. Nazeer Ahmed

So, what happened?

How did the Islamic world fall behind Europe? Alternately, what explains the rise of European technology and the decay of technology in the Islamic world? Was there one overwhelming event or was it a combination of social, political, technological, religious and military factors? We will take a brief survey of Islamic history to examine the ideas, the movements, the decisive events and the personages who influenced the development of science and technology and contributed to its flourishing and its decline.

The Mu’tazalite Eruption

It was the year 760. The Abbasid Caliphate vaulted across three continents, extending from Spain to India.  The Caliph al Mansur (d 775), realizing the need of a new capital for the administration of this vast empire, founded the magnificent city of Baghdad (760) on the banks of the river Tigris in Iraq. The empire brought together the peoples of Europe, Africa and Asia into a commonwealth of cultures. Baghdad became a melting pot of nations and a crucible of ideas from around the world. The resilient and self-confident Islamic civilization amalgamated these ideas and produced a composite culture that preserved and vastly expanded the intellectual horizons of humankind.

Al Mansur started a collection of classical books in Greek and Sanskrit. Under his successors, the process gathered momentum. The famed Caliph Harun al Rasheed, grandson of al Mansur, is generally credited with establishing a Bait al Hikmah (House of Wisdom) to transcribe and translate ancient texts from Greece, India, China and Persia. Under his son al Mamum, the Bait al Hikmah grew into a vast complex with separate departments for the sciences, astronomy, mathematics, logic and medicine. Here came the scholars from around the world with their books and their manuscripts, their philosophies and their sciences.  The Greeks brought with them the works of Aristotle, Galen and Plato. The Indians brought the astronomical treatises of Aryabhatta. The Chinese brought the technology for making porcelain and paper. The Persians brought the technology for windmills. An observatory was constructed to measure and map the heavens and measure the movement of planets and stars.  Baghdad radiated a culture of learning. Secondary libraries sprang up in major cities across the far flung empire, patronized by local governors and wealthy individuals. In later centuries, similar great centers of learning were established in North Africa (eighth century), Cordoba, Spain (ninth century) and Cairo, Egypt (tenth century).

The Muslims mastered the knowledge of the Greeks and the Hindus, greatly expanded it and invented new disciplines that were hitherto unknown. 

Knowledge is a gift from God. The acquisition of knowledge expands intellectual horizons and provides the propulsive power for the advancement of civilization. The Muslims mastered the knowledge of the Greeks and the Hindus, greatly expanded it and invented new disciplines that were hitherto unknown.  The accommodation of the sciences and philosophies from distant lands tested the limits of Muslim intellectual tolerance. Of all the sciences that the Islamic world were exposed to, the rational philosophy of the Greeks presented the greatest opportunity and the greatest challenge.

Read: Influential Islamic Scholar Imam Ahmed Was Tortured in Ramadan Because of His Beliefs

Muslim scholars fell in love with the rigor and precision of Greek rational thought and set out with enthusiasm to apply it to the profound questions emanating from the domains of nature, science, culture and faith. The Caliph al-Mansur was so impressed with the power and reach of reason that he adopted the rational approach as the court dogma. Those who applied the rational methods of the Greek philosophers to science, theology and culture were called the Mu’tazalites. This was the heyday for philosophy and philosophers in the Islamic world. Aristotle was their hero and his method was their guide. For eighty years, from 765 till 846, the Mu’tazalites were the darling of the Abbasid courts.

The Mu’tazalites over-extended their reach, intellectually and politically. Ancient philosophy depended heavily on a linear concept of time. Inherent to Greek logic were the assumptions of before and after, cause and effect, subject and object. As is now well understood by students of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity, these assumptions are approximations and break down both at the sub-atomic and the galactic levels. The Mu’tazalites were unaware of these limits.  When they applied their rational methods to matters of faith, they fell flat on their face. In Islam, God is transcendent, beyond time and space, and there is none like unto Him. To maintain this transcendence, the Mu’tazalites advanced the position that the Qur’an could not be co-extant with God and must therefore be construed as “created”. This is a classic example of how philosophers fall into conceptual traps when they take positions on the nature of things without understanding the assumptions and the limits of their positions. For instance, can rational thought explain love? What is the reason to love? Is love eternal?  The heart admits of dimensions beyond the space-time dimensions of the mind. In a larger framework, the mind is king of the created world but it cannot understand matters of the heart and is helpless before it. The Nobel Laureate Schroedinger in his book Mind and Matter explained it beautifully:

“Mind, for anything perception can compass, goes therefore in our spatial world more ghostly than a ghost. Invisible, intangible, it is a thing not even of outline; it is not a ‘thing’. It remains without sensual confirmation and remains without it forever…. Physical science faces us with the impasse that mind per se cannot move a finger of a hand. Then the impasse meets us. The blank of the ‘how’ of mind’s leverage on matter…is unknown”, Schroedinger, Mind and Matter, Cambridge University Press, 1958, pp 42-43.

Imam Ahmed was whipped and jailed many times

Faith, which is based both on reason and emotion, transcends the capabilities of the mind. Modern string theories now admit of eleven-dimensional space and the possibilities of co-extant parallel universes.  The limitations of ancient philosophical thought are all too obvious.

The Mu’tazalite position that the Qur’an was “created” produced an uproar in orthodox circles. A counter-Mu’tazila movement sprang up, led by the Usuli ulema. The Mu’tazalites as well as the opposition invoked the Qur’an to justify their positions. Chief among those who opposed the Mutazalites was Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, after whom the Hanbali fiqh is named. The Mu’tazalites showed little political wisdom. They applied the whip to those who opposed them. Imam Ahmed was whipped and jailed many times. Faced with determined opposition, the Caliph al Mutawakkil abandoned court patronage of the Mu’tazalites (846 CE). In turn, when the anti-Mu’tazalites had the upper hand, they persecuted the Mu’tazalites. (Continues)

Click here for Part-I 

________________

(The author is Director, World Organization for Resource Development and Education, Washington, DC; Director, American Institute of Islamic History and Culture, CA; Member, State Knowledge Commission, Bangalore; and Chairman, Delixus Group)

Courtesy: History of Islam

The post Why the Scientific Revolution Did Not Take Place in the Muslim World? Part-II first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms

The European Union is preparing for what was unthinkable—American withdrawal from NATO.

They have been spurred into action not just by Donald Trump’s offer to Vladimir Putin to “do what you want” with any NATO member who fails to devote two percent of their GDP to defence.

No, Europeans detect 1—a growing undercurrent of isolationism; 2- an American perception that the biggest threat to their national interests lie in Asia; 3- that Americans feel that Europeans have taken advantage of American military largesse for too long and 4- Even the greatest military power in the history of the world can’t fight a two-front war in Asia and Europe.

Read: Trump will pull US out of NATO if he wins election, ex-adviser warns

None of the above concerns take into account the many benefits America derives from membership of NATO.  And the fact is, that Americans, especially MAGA Republicans, are in no mood to listen.

That is why this week the EU launched its European Defense Industry Strategy. At the moment the US supplies about half of the armaments required by its European allies. If Europe is to stand alone then it needs an armaments industry to supplies its troops.

Read: Trump didn’t quit NATO, but a potential second term alarms allies

Launching the EDI Strategy, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called on EU members to spend at least half of their defense procurement budgets on European-produced weaponry.

To encourage national defense ministries to “buy European,” the commission is dangling a few carrots. For a start, they are offering to exempt ministries from paying VAT on EU-made guns and bullets.

They are also establishing a “High Level Defense Industry Group” to help coordinate procurement programs and an organization to sell the increased defense production to third countries.

Read: Congress approves bill barring any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO

And finally, to further encourage the growth of an EU defense industry, the commission plans to partly finance this growth in advance by pre-sales to non-EU armies, air forces and navies.

But there are problems with this plan. For a start most defence planners agree that if America withdrew from NATO that the Europeans—and possibly Canadians as well– best course of action would be to simply move into the NATO positions formerly held by the Americans.

This is because of the past 75 years NATO has developed elaborate and successful command and control systems and lines of communication. Why re-invent the wheel. And, it is all well and good to have more weapons, but Europe also needs tried and test systems to deploy them effectively.

The next problem is that not all members of the EU are members of NATO. Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, and Malta are EU members but not in NATO. Iceland, Norway, Britain, Canada, Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Turkey are members of the NATO alliance but not in the EU.

Ukraine, is included in the planned European Defense Industry Strategy but is neither a member of the EU or NATO.

Read: What if America leaves NATO?

Britain is, of course, one of the most important components in any European-only defense system who is not a member of the EU. The Royal Navy would almost certainly have to assume most of the responsibility for guarding the North Sea, Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap, the English Channel and the approaches to the Channel. Britain also has the second largest defense budget within NATO.

Most important of all, if Europe is to have any kind of nuclear umbrella it needs Britain. The UK has an estimated 250 nuclear warheads, most of them situated at the tips of Trident II missiles which can be launched from its four Vanguard-class submarines.

The French have another 250. And since 2010 Britain and France have been cooperating in the development and production of nuclear warheads. Of course, 500 warheads is less than a tenth of the size of the Russian arsenal. But it is conceivable that Europe can develop a minimum deterrence policy. After all, at the height of the Sino-Soviet split, the Chinese held off Moscow with only 300 warheads.

What is inconceivable, is a European defense system without Britain.

World Review

Keep your eye on Israeli politician Benny Gantz. He is currently the bookies’ favorite to be Israel’s next Prime Minister.

More importantly, he has hinted at a willingness to discuss the two-state solution.

This has put him in direct conflict with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the far-right coalition members of his government. They are totally opposed to the two-state solution which is being pushed by the US, Europe, the Arab world and virtually everyone except Netanyahu and Co.

Gantz’s political flexibility earned him an invitation to visit Washington where this week he met with Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

The visit was not cleared with Netanyahu who ordered Michael Herzog, Israel’s ambassador in Washington, to do everything possible to sabotage the Gantz visit.

And when the minister-without-portfolio returned he was told by Netanyahu that “Israel has only one prime minister.” That prime minister, it must be said, has yet to receive an invitation to visit the Biden White House.

Gantz is leader of the National Unity Party. Like so many Israeli politicians he came through the ranks of the military, eventually becoming army chief of staff in 2012. Then in 2018 he decided to turn his hand to politics and very quickly emerged as the main opposition figure to Netanyahu.

After the October 7 attack by Hamas, Netanyahu invited Gantz to join a national unity war cabinet, along with three other members of his party

Gantz accepted and is in full agreement with Netanyahu on the need for total victory over Hamas. But the two men part company over what happens next.

Netanyahu is adamant in his refusal to discuss a two-state solution or anything even remotely resembling a two=state solution.

But in 2020, Gantz told the Munich Security Conference: “Eventually we will find ourselves a two-entity solution in which we respect Palestinian sovereignty and governance but we will be respected for our security needs.”

Despite repeated questioning by journalists and others, Gantz refused to define “entity.” But position was clear enough to prompt far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to describe Benny Gantz as the “weak link” in Israel’s war cabinet. This week Smotrich stood up in the Knesset and demanded that Gantz declare his opposition to the two-state solution. Gantz’s reply was a deafening silence.

Meanwhile the minister-without-portfolio continues to rise in the opinion polls and Netanyahu continues to fall. According to a poll this week by Israel’s Channel 10, voters believe that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political ends. According to the poll, voters think that the prime minister knows that when the war ends he will unceremoniously be voted out of office and – without immunity from prosecution–face a series of long-standing corruption charges.

***

The Sudanese Civil War is a forgotten war. It shouldn’t be.

Not only is Sudan a major humanitarian crisis with upwards of ten million displaced people, but it is turning into a geopolitical battleground pulling in many of the world’s major powers.

At its core, the war is a power struggle between two men: the leader of the Sudanese army General Abdul Fattah al-Burhan and the head of Sudan’s feared paramilitary forces General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo who goes by the nom de guerre of Hemedti.

Hemedti has one big advantage—he controls the country’s gold producing regions. Sudan is the third largest gold producer in Africa after Ghana and South Africa. It produces about $1.3 billion worth of gold a year.

Usually this money goes straight into government coffers. But at the moment it is going to pay for Putin’s war machine via the Wagner Group who is supplying weapons and men in return for illegal gold mining rights.

This has drawn Ukraine into the Sudanese civil war. They recently dispatched war-hardened commandos to the aid of General Burhan because they want to stop the flow of gold to Russia.

The United Arab Emirates have also become involved because they have a stake as middle men in the sale of the gold. They back Hemedti.

The US and Britain are being drawn in because they are concerned about Putin using the Wagner Group to establish a base on the Red Sea. Sudan borders both the Red Sea, the Sahel region and the Horn of Africa.

It also has the Nile running through it. This makes it of interest to Egypt, which is also supporting General Burhan. Ethiopia, who is in the middle of a dispute with Egypt over the Nile water rights, supports Hemedti.

Possibly because it doesn’t want be left out, Saudi Arabia is also involved. But it is hedging its bets by talking with both sides. In the meantime the ten million remain homeless.

***

Economists reckon that the Chinese economy needs to grow by eight percent a year. Less than that and the Chinese Communist Party will have difficulty in providing the social services needed to stave off political unrest.

Last year it grew at five percent. Next year, according to a speech this week by Premier Li Qiang to the rubber stamp National People’s Congress, the economy will grow another five percent.

In fact, most Western economists doubt even the five percent figure. But they can’t provide an accurate statistic because of lack of transparency on the part of the Chinese Communist Party.

There are lots of reasons for the Chinese slowdown. The sanctions and “de-risking” policies of the West are having an effect, especially as the Chinese economy requires large injections of foreign capital. The global cost-of-living crisis caused primarily by the Ukraine War, is also impacting on Chinese exports. Western households just don’t have the money to buy Chinese goods.

Then there is the property market. Seventy percent of Chinese household wealth is tied up in real estate and the real estate sector is crashing.

Related to property is government investment in infrastructure which has been paid for by borrowings. The Chinese government borrowings have increased six-fold since 2000 to 335 percent of the Chinese GDP.

The easy answer to the problems of the Chinese economy is to mobilize their 1.41 billion citizens to spend more. The CCP was hoping for just that when the covid emergency stopped. It didn’t happen. And the reason it didn’t happen is because the Chinese people are saving for what they fear will be a very rainy day.

***

Excitement in the South China Sea this week. The Philippines Coast Guard and their Chinese equivalent clashed with a couple of rammings and damage to a Filipino vessel by a Chinese water cannon.

The government of Bongbong Marcos is currently in the frontline opposing Chinese sovereignty claims over the South China Sea. His hand is strengthened by the recent return of US troops to the Philippines and the country’s long-standing Mutual Defense Treaty with America.

The Philippines is only one of several countries that dispute Beijing’s claim to all of the South China Sea. But it is the only one that has staked out a physical presence.

That presence is a rusty rat-infested World War Two ship the Sierra Madre. The Philippines ran the ship aground on the Second Thomas Shoal in the Spratly Islands. The government then based a small rotating detachment of marines on the ship.

This week’s clash came about because a small flotilla of Philippines Coast Guard vessels was attempting to re-supply the marines. They were blocked by up to 25 Chinese ships. One Filipino ship was rammed and another had its windows broken by a water cannon. CNN cameras caught the action.

One of the Philippines Coast Guard vessels managed to break through the blockade to bring food and fresh water to the Sierra Madre. It will be another 90 days before another supply attempt is made.

The Philippines are particularly concerned about the effect that the Chinese claim has on their fishing industry which employs 1.6 million people. The South China Sea is one of the world’s richest fishing grounds. Its 3,365 known species are estimated to represent 12 percent of the world’s fish.

The 1.3 million square miles of the South China is also the world’s busiest shipping lane. $3.4 trillion worth of trade passes through it every year. And underneath the seabed is reckoned to be 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Taiwan and Malaysia all claim economic rights to a portion of the South China Sea. Each country’s slice is based on the UN-recognized 200-mile limit or median line. China claims it all. Its claim has been rejected by the International Court of Justice, but has the support of 66 other countries.

Read: Observations of an Expat: Space Wars

____________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and the author of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War.” He is also co-host of the world affairs podcast “TransAtlantic Riff” which can be heard by clicking here.

https://open.spotify.com/show/3ntjretAKNLZNFpA5ZEGDG?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The post Observations of an Expat: Unthinkable first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Astana

In 2023, Kazakhstan exported uranium worth $3.4 billion, as announced by the press service of the “QazTrade” Center for Trade Policy Development on February 18, summarizing the foreign trade results of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2023, according to Forbes.kz.

The main importers of Kazakh uranium are China, the United States, and Russia. European countries purchasing uranium include France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

The total volume of Kazakhstan’s trade with foreign states reached $139.8 billion (+3.2%). The export share was $78.7 billion (-7%), with $25.3 billion attributed to non-raw materials, compared to $26.8 billion in 2022.

Read also: Kazakhstan ready to transfer its airports to management of European investors

Goods worth $61.1 billion were imported into Kazakhstan (+20.1%). Thus, the positive trade balance amounted to $17.6 billion ($33.7 billion in 2022).

Top 10 trading partners of Kazakhstan:

China – $31.5 billion;

Russia – $26 billion;

Italy – $16.1 billion;

South Korea – $6 billion;

Turkey – $6 billion;

Netherlands – $4.4 billion;

Uzbekistan – $4.4 billion;

France – $4.2 billion;

USA – $4.1 billion;

Germany – $3.9 billion.

The main components of the export include: oil and oil products – $43.4 billion (55.2%), followed by non-precious metals – $9.6 billion (12.2%), agricultural products – $5.4 billion (6.8%), ores – $4.9 billion (6.3%), uranium – $3.4 billion (4.4%), natural gas – $2.1 billion (2.6%), and other industrial goods – $9.8 billion (12.5%).

Kazakhstan imported: equipment and electrical machinery – $15.5 billion (25.3%), motor vehicles and parts – $7.8 billion (12.7%), non-precious metals – $5.6 billion (9.2%), food products – $4.8 billion (7.8%), textiles – $4.8 billion (7.8%), and other goods – $22.8 billion (37.2%).

Also read: America purchases locomotive production plant in Kazakhstan

_________________________

Courtesy: Central Asian Light (Posted on February 21, 2024)

The post Kazakhstan earned $3.5 billion from uranium exports first appeared on Sindh Courier.