Foreign Policy Blogs

In recent years, diplomatic developments have significantly disrupted and reshaped the global trade and logistics systems that had been established over decades. One of the most impactful events in this context was Russia’s — or more precisely, President Vladimir Putin’s — decision to launch a military invasion of Ukraine, effectively sparking the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war that began in March 2022.

In response, the West — namely the United States and Western Europe — sought to impose severe economic penalties on Russia as both a form of punishment for igniting a European war and as a strategy to cripple its military and other critical sectors by cutting off financial lifelines. As part of this effort, Western Europe dap dramatically reduced its purchases of Russian natural gas and began searching for alternatives to both Russian gas and oil (it’s important to note that Russia is the world’s largest gas exporter and the second-largest oil exporter, after Saudi Arabia). Furthermore, Western countries are avoiding any diplomatic or economic engagements that might benefit Russia — including allowing goods to transit through Russian territory, which could generate revenue for Moscow through taxes.

A similar approach has been adopted toward another pariah state — the Islamic Republic of Iran. The recent war between Hamas and Israel, along with Iran’s involvement in supporting jihadist attacks and missile strikes, has led the West to double down on efforts to economically isolate Iran, much like they have with Russia.

It is precisely in this geopolitical context — where Russia and Iran have become largely untouchable for most global actors — that the “Organization of Turkic States” (OTS) has emerged. This alliance, while not radically different from the European Union in structure or vision, resembles the foundational logic behind the United States of America — only this time, among Turkic-speaking nations. Member states include Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan.

Historically, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser attempted to create a unified Arab state, based on the belief that a pan-Arab union — blessed with oil, natural resources, and control over critical chokepoints like the Suez Canal — would be geopolitically unbeatable. That vision failed, primarily because every Arab leader at the time wanted to be the one in charge. Today, the Turkic alliance avoids that trap. It is not about creating a new country, but about forming a unified bloc that empowers each member and increases their collective influence in dealing with the West and the East.

The OTS’s objective is to establish a barrier-free space for international cooperation and joint development, stretching from Western Europe to South and East Asia. Its strategic mission is to reunify the fractured Eurasian continent — which global powers have historically divided — and to restore peace as a central element in the global agenda. Unlike the failed pan-Arab unity project, which was founded on hostility toward Israel, the OTS is not built on conflict but on shared interests for regional stability and prosperity.

So what gives the OTS its strategic strength in this complex global moment? The answer lies in geography and logistics. The Turkic states control the only viable overland route for transporting goods between Europe and parts of Asia. They also serve as critical gateways for Europe to access essential natural resources — both those located within the Turkic states themselves and those that must pass through them en route to Europe. With the West refusing to collaborate with Iran and Russia, the OTS corridor — which stretches from China and Pakistan to the heart of Europe in Hungary — becomes essential.

A successful partnership between the OTS and European states could lead to uniquely accessible transport and communications corridors that connect Western Europe’s economic hubs with those in East Asia, while also linking them to the growing markets and production centers of Central and South Asia. In short, this is a win-win situation for everyone — except, of course, for Russia and Iran.

On May 21, Budapest — the capital of Hungary — hosted the latest OTS summit. Although Hungary is a European country, it holds observer status within the OTS and actively participates in its activities (it’s worth remembering that large parts of Hungary were once under Ottoman rule). There is, in fact, no significant geopolitical gap between Hungary and the Turkic states. As Europe has lost its traditional eastern routes through Russia and Iran and now faces instability along its southern borders — not to mention threats to the Suez Canal — it seems that the OTS corridor may be Europe’s only realistic path to the East. 

Without it, Europe risks becoming a marginal appendage to the United States — a country skilled at rhetoric but lacking meaningful initiatives. European states have begun adjusting their foreign policies accordingly, recognizing the OTS as a key player in the emerging Eurasian order. Even the European Union was forced to accept the observer status of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the OTS — despite longstanding opposition from Greece.

The OTS also offers political backing to Hungary against pressure from liberal elites within the EU and presents an alternative to other “pseudo-liberal” projects.

At the conclusion of the summit, the OTS issued the “Budapest Declaration,” directed at global leaders and especially those in Europe. The declaration emphasized the OTS’s vital role in securing global peace, security, and sustainable development. It reaffirmed the Turkic states’ commitment to building a reliable transportation and communication corridor linking Europe to Asia, fostering a zone of peace and development along the way. The core message was a call to overcome international divisions and construct a peace-oriented region stretching from Europe to China. However, the declaration did not shy away from defense and security issues — for example, it referenced the expansion of cooperation in the defense industry.

The OTS draws upon Turkic legacies of the past, promotes inclusivity, and is rooted in shared histories across regions such as the South Caucasus, the Balkans, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. The Budapest Declaration underscores the “Turkic World Vision,” which affirms the value of uniting Turkic nations not only through a shared past, but through a common vision for the present and future. The vision promotes cooperation based on a shared Turkic identity, history, culture, and traditions, explicitly rejecting racist ideologies and embracing multiculturalism. The definition of a “Turkic state” is broadly interpreted — as evidenced by Hungary’s observer status.

It appears that the Turkic era is making a powerful return, echoing the days when three great Turkic empires — the Ottoman, the Mamluk, and the Mongol — dominated the Middle East, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and Asia. History, it seems, is repeating itself.

 Among all the member states of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), one country stands out more than the rest—Azerbaijan. First and foremost, there is no doubt that Azerbaijan holds a crucial position in the emerging trade corridor the OTS is striving to establish. Alongside Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan controls a key transit route from Europe to several important regions in Asia, making its role irreplaceable. Without its cooperation, the entire trade initiative would likely collapse.

Secondly, over the past few years, Azerbaijan has gradually become one of the major transportation and logistics hubs in the wider Eurasian region. This status was acknowledged by Kazakhstan’s President, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, who publicly thanked Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev for the logistical support Azerbaijan provided in boosting Kazakhstan’s oil exports. Third, Azerbaijan is the largest investor among all Turkic states, with its total investments in OTS countries exceeding 20 billion US dollars. This financial strength suggests that Azerbaijan may well be the most economically stable member of the organization—and potentially one of the most militarily capable as well.

Aside from Turkey, Azerbaijan is the only OTS member that has engaged in actual warfare in the past decade. Its conflict with Armenia led to increased military funding and the development of a highly trained army. In addition, Azerbaijan maintains exceptionally close ties with Turkey—often referred to as its “brother nation”—and with Kazakhstan, with whom it cooperates across a wide range of sectors. Taken together, these factors position Azerbaijan as arguably the strongest member of the OTS in terms of economy, security, and diplomacy. What is certain, however, is that it is one of the most dominant and influential players within the organization.

The Iron Beam is the next Generation of Air Defense

The idea of the Golden Dome for Air Defense over the United States and some of its allies is not a new concept, but it likely was not possible to be completely effective until the 2020s. In the 1980s, President Reagan’s idea of his Star Wars named SDI space based defense system was an ambitious plan to have missile interceptors and possible laser based weapons in space that would target ICBMs once they entered the upper atmosphere. While ballistic intercontinental missiles entered space or near space when meeting targets on the other side of the globe, the amount of computer processing power and technology needed to hit a very fast moving target was in its infancy. At the time as well, MIRV Missiles, or missiles that launched multiple warheads was at the peak of nuclear missile technology, and would likely ensure that at least some of the warheads would hit, even if the SDI-Star Wars concept was feasible. Such MIRV nuclear missiles are still a threat today, difficult to stop even in the 2020s.

The idea that the United States could defend against a nuclear missile attack did have some utility, as the Soviets were unsure at the time if they would be able to penetrate a US defense shield, putting them in a weak position militarily. The Soviets were aware of the US Nike missile defense systems, one version that worked by setting off a nuke in the sky to destroy many incoming targets, but thought that Star Wars may have been the effective answer to MAD for the US, and would have changed the power dynamic completely. Later in the early 90s during the Gulf War, the first generation of US Patriot Missiles were sent to the region to defend against Soviet made SCUD missiles being launched from Iraq. While they claimed the Patriot could shoot down missiles at the time, the reality is that few SCUDs were shot down by Patriots, being a system geared towards shooting slower flying, larger aircraft.

The War in Ukraine showed the effectiveness of even older anti-aircraft systems against airplanes, with even old 1980s era systems like the SA-8 keeping both Russian and Ukrainian higher flying aircraft grounded during the war. The start of the war began with Ukraine’s most experienced pilots being shot down soon after take-off in Ukraine by Russian S-300 type missiles based in Belarus. The reality of missile technology at the time effectively grounded both Air Forces. As the war continued on, newer and more expensive NATO missile systems were placed in Ukraine, as Russian bombers would take to launching long range missiles from a safe distance and the new systems were the only ones that had the chance to stop many of these extremely fast missiles.

The Golden Dome Type missile shield desired by the US Administration would likely be composed of different tiers of defense, some of which already exist today in one form or another. Many believe that the Golden Dome would be a copy of the Iron Dome, but even in Israel, the Iron Dome is only used for small munitions, shot in volleys and easily destroyed with small warheads. For ballistic missile defense, the Arrow type missile system is used along with another ranged system. A US version would likely be needed more for long range ballistic missiles, as the threat to the US would be from abroad, not likely from directly over the border Katyusha rocket attacks. The US THAAD system is already deployed in Israel, along with US Navy missile defense systems and radars which are already very effective against incoming missile attacks.

The THAAD system is already deployed by the United States as a missile defense system against threats from North Korea. There is a THAAD system based in South Korea at the moment, and THAAD based in protection of Hawaii in Guam. It could be imagined that the Golden Dome could be easily established with an expanded radar network for THAAD into Central America, Northern Canada(where there was always a radar base in Alert, Canada), and Greenland. Improvements on the THAAD may take place using information in defending against Iran’s ballistic missile attacks and hypersonic missile attacks in Ukraine. The challenge for the THAAD or other systems is that THAAD should be used ideally only for longer ranges, and have enough interceptors to defend against a large swarm attack of enemy missiles. The concept of multi-tiered defense already exists within the US Navy, with SM-6 and other variants of SM missiles being used to target differing levels of threats. The reality is that few planes could likely evade a modern missile defense if targeted by the radar and having a Meteor missile, PL-15 or new US missiles shot at them. The Golden Dome requires a THAAD or similar type missile, ones that can hit hypersonic nuclear threats, can see stealthy and intelligent incoming missiles and will be aided by preventive diplomacy and preemptive strikes as best policy.

Ukraine made history by sneaking truck based shipping containers close to bomber air bases in Russia and launching a drone attack on several bases at once, targeting sensitive parts Russia’s bomber fleet. Russia has a limited bomber capability with many of their ships made during the Soviet era, many being out of production, or difficult and expensive to replace. These bombers were the stand off launchers for Russian missile attacks on Ukraine, and a plan was made over a year ago to execute this highly precise mission. Information has been rolling in about destroyed targets, with slower, older and more numerous TU-95 Bear bombers taking the brunt of the hits. Many supersonic TU-22M3/TU-26 bombers were also hit, planes that are no longer replaceable as they are out of production. Some of the prized TU-160 Blackjack bombers may have also been lost, along with a very valuable A-50 AWACS aircraft and many transport aircraft, all burned on the airfields.

The Golden Dome concept should not assume that their systems are infallible, as Russian territory is blanketed with S-400, Pantsir and S-500 defense systems that have not stopped attacks inside Russia, despite being comparable to the US THAAD system. The Ukrainian intelligence operation to attack Russia’s bomber fleet inside of Russia, along with a possible Submarine base, is a lesson in humility…in that you should not assume there are not internal threats when possessing the best missile defense in the world…and humiliation, where wars can be shifted in direction via narrative as much as via the number of soldiers an army possesses. Internal Guerrilla threats can be as dangerous as external missiles, and the Golden Dome is only as good as safe streets and a responsible Government.

The newly reinstated President of the United States, having returned to the White House and the Oval Office, has quickly managed to initiate a range of diplomatic processes that once seemed like distant fantasies. Even more remarkably, he is already beginning to reap the rewards of these efforts in a surprisingly short amount of time.

Donald Trump has resumed the presidency during a time when the world is engulfed in a storm of violence, hatred, and chaos. A prolonged war between Ukraine and Russia has triggered numerous global crises, as both countries are major wheat exporters vital to international food supply chains. Meanwhile, the conflict between Israel and the terrorist organization Hamas is reshaping the entire Middle East landscape, robbing the region’s residents of peace and stability. Beyond the war itself, the issue of Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza has had global repercussions, as many of the hostages also hold dual citizenships—Argentinian, French, and American among them.

On top of that, Syria’s regime has collapsed, Lebanon has appointed a new president after a long power vacuum, and China continues to grow stronger economically. Despite this complex global reality, Trump has not been deterred. Instead, he has chosen to tackle these challenges through the method he knows best: advancing mutual interests- in a word, business.

During a recent speech in Saudi Arabia, Trump declared that the decisions he has made and the actions he has taken in his first four months in office surpass the accomplishments of previous presidents over the past eight years. And frankly, he’s not wrong. It appears Trump has made a conscious decision to stop observing global problems from a distance and instead begin seeking fast, practical solutions.

Moreover, Trump has shifted the American approach to international conflicts—moving away from forceful intervention and one-sided involvement, and toward genuine dialogue and strategic negotiation. In his speech, he praised a “new generation of leaders” in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and Muscat, saying they are “transcending the ancient conflicts of tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence.”

Trump emphasized that this new era in the Middle East was not brought about by Western interference, but by the efforts of local Arab leaders themselves—who followed their own vision in pursuit of their goals. He argued that past Western involvement in the region often did more harm than good, drawing a direct comparison between President Biden’s administration and the colonial powers of Britain and France in the early 20th century, who carved up the Middle East according to their own interests. Trump accused Biden and his team of making misguided decisions and arbitrarily favoring certain nations over others.

He concluded his remarks to the Arab leaders by praising their cultural resilience, stating: “You achieved a modern miracle the Arabian way, that’s a good way.”

In Azerbaijan, many who heard Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia couldn’t help but notice the parallels he drew between the Biden administration and how Azerbaijan felt it was treated under Biden’s leadership. Azerbaijanis perceived themselves as second-class in the eyes of key international powers, believing other countries received preferential treatment. Many in the country recall the words of President Ilham Aliyev just a month earlier: “Those who smiled at us were in fact trying to stab us in the back,” referencing the alleged channeling of funds into Azerbaijan to support groups working to overthrow the government.

Aliyev claimed that “such notorious institutions like the National Democratic Institute (NDI) were actually plotting a coup d’état here.” He continued, “We traced more than 1 million US dollars from a bank account, which was cashed out, and then we found part of that money in rented apartments of opposition activists, together with Molotov cocktails and instructions on how to attack government buildings, how to attack policemen. So, we experienced all of that. The attempts of an Orange Revolution here in 2005 were inspired by the U.S. State Department.”

According to Aliyev, during Biden’s tenure, Azerbaijan was the target of many false rumors, which suddenly stopped once the Democrats left office. Regarding this, he remarked: “We knew that the source of these articles was the State Department.”

In conclusion, Trump’s return to the White House offers hope for a better future—especially for the Middle East and Azerbaijan. It’s hard not to suspect that the Biden administration had ulterior motives for withholding cooperation with Azerbaijan and repeatedly undermining it. After all, how else can one explain the dramatic shift in the U.S. approach within just a few months? All we can do now is hope that Trump- “the gift that keeps on giving”—will continue supporting Azerbaijan and other countries in the region toward a future of peace, prosperity, and strong economies.

India’s French Made Rafale is one of the most advanced fighter jets in their region.

The recent bouts of battles between India and Pakistan comes at a time where many other parts of the world are in conflict, and many suspect that conflict will extend East towards Asia. While it is difficult to get precise information on details of the active battlefield between the two countries, the defense establishment in many parts of the world are watching with great interest on the developments of their systems in actual combat.

India’s and Pakistan’s Air Forces are an interesting mix of different planes and systems from various parts of the world. Pakistan uses US military equipment like the F-16, and is heavily invested with China in developing many weapons systems against Indian interests. China and Pakistan’s joint fighter program of the JF-17 has likely seen combat in the latest row with India, a program meant to solidify both Pakistan’s and China’s combined security push against India. While other weapons systems have followed this joint program, they are usually based around ground vehicles and tanks, with the JF-17 being a jointly produced and advanced small fighter plane.

What has been the focus of a great deal of interest is the use of the Chinese made J-10 fighter jet by Pakistan. The J-10 is one of the more advanced Chinese fighter jets in the region, albeit one that never had been used in actual combat. Paired with the J-10 is the new long range PL-15 missile, a modern system that can theoretically out range most similar NATO missiles. Claims that the J-10 had been very successful in countering advanced Indian Air Force fighters often come with the claim that long range PL-15 missiles played a major role in their success.

India’s Air Force has one of the most diverse and capable fleets in the region. India’s close ties with Soviet and Russian technology has equipped India with some of the most advanced Russian technology, despite India being a strong Western ally. Often produced via license in India, systems like the T-90 tank and SU-30 keep India supplied with advanced weapons systems. The purchase of French aircraft like the Mirage 2000 and Rafale give India some of the most capable technology worldwide in securing their territory.

Claims that a J-10 shot down at least one Rafale is one of the most notable claims made during the start of the war, with both sides trying to demonstrate their strengths using the narrative of the lost or survived Rafale. In reality, new technology battles involve long range targeting of enemy aircraft using BVR, Beyond Visual Range radars and missiles. Evading new missile technology is difficult for any aircraft that can be picked up on long range radar, and it could be the case that the side with the most missiles will often dominate the airspace. The point of interest from NATO allies seems to be whether or not the French Mirage 2000 and Rafale has a radar and missile combination that can best China’s new J-10 with the PL-15 missile, or if China’s new weapons are as advanced and as capable as they claim them to be?

China’s weapons programs often came with licensing and taken Western and Soviet technologies that were seen as technologically behind those of their counterparts. Many Chinese weapons systems were officially licensed from France, like their HQ-7 Crotale missile system, or taken from Russian samples like China’s J-11 fighter, a copy of Russia’s SU-27. Even recent Chinese made fighters like the J-10 often depended on Russian made engines and equipment, limiting China’s ability to sell its equipment abroad due to Russian licensing controls on weapon parts. With the J-10 demonstrating any victory over their Western or Russian counterparts, China would be able to finally develop its foreign weapons sales past its traditional allies and establish a serious international presence outside of its region.

The air battles between India and Pakistan were different than air to air conflict in Ukraine as much of the Russian and Ukrainian long range fighter systems have been grounded, or dedicated to launching long range air to surface munitions as opposed to engaging other enemy aircraft. With the F-16 and now Mirage 2000 being present in Ukraine, it is still difficult to see how successful they would be against Russia’s air force in direct combat. The reality of the air war in Ukraine is that both Ukraine and Russia have flooded the airspace with advanced anti-aircraft systems and radars, and flying too far into the combat zone would guarantee being targeted. While India is covered by S-400 systems, and Pakistan is using an S-300 copy/licensed HQ-9 Chinese system, their air war looks a lot more like ones from years ago when anti-air systems were not as deadly as they are post-2020. The interest in the advancement of China’s technology will play into battle simulations as the long range missile and radar is the king of air combat, and will determine whether or not an attack is viable.

A huge rally in solidarity with the Sudanese people victims of chemical weapons and calling for
peace in Sudan was organized on May 18th in front of the UK parliament in London . The
demonstration gathered more than 100 people from different EU and UK organizations as well
as a coalition of Sudanese human rights organizations under the “Sudanese peace forum”
including Safe steps and Sudanese women for peace as well as and the Peace and Democratic
Transition Organization to call for an immediate action to stop war in Sudan and prosecute the
Sudanese army for human rights violations.

Representatives from EU human rights organizations invited the international community to stand up for the rights of the Sudanese people and stop the war as well as end the suffering of civilians mainly women and children. Film director and human rights activist Deborah Paul highlighted that” Caught in the crossfire are millions of innocent civilians—and tragically, women and children have become
deliberate targets. Rape is being used not only as an act of violence, but as a weapon of
war. Girls as young as one. Boys. Mothers, grandmothers, daughters. Sisters, friends.
Entire communities torn apart” she also added the need to act now and demand
accountability. We must amplify the courage of survivors. We must support the frontline
organizations offering medical care, trauma healing, and protection. And we must name
this for what it is: a crime against humanity”

Aye Soe Kari, president of international Burmese students ,youth activist and human
rights defender pointed out that “Sudan is now the crisis of the world’s worst hunger crisis,
a crisis that barely makes global headlines. More than 26 million people, over half the country, face food insecurity. That means children crying from hunger with nothing to eat. That means mothers skipping meals for days just so their babies can survive a little longer. In some areas, families are eating
leaves from trees. In others, people are boiling water with rocks, pretending it’s soup to
comfort their starving children.

In the camps, there’s no milk, no bread, no fruit. People line up for hours in the heat for a
bowl of porridge, and often there’s not enough to go around. Children have swollen bellies
and thinning hair, classic signs of starvation. Some families have been forced to eat the
seeds they were saving for the next planting season, knowing full well it means they might
not be able to grow food next year.

And while people starve, aid trucks and international help gets blocked by violence. Farmers
have fled their land. Markets have been bombed. Food prices have skyrocketed. And
what little help is available often doesn’t reach those who need it most”
ABDELRAHIM GREIN Adam ,the head of the Peace and Democratic Transition
Organization addressed an urgent call to the international community to stand with the
Sudanese population victim of chemical weapons.

He added that “The Sudanese army is no longer a national army. It is a criminal militia hijacked by radical
Islamists, and partnered with extremist groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the remnants of
the Muslim Brotherhood. These are not accusations. They are facts — documented by survivors, field reports, and the smoldering ruins of our cities. Chemical Weapons are used against children, families, hospitals, and markets. Invisible death, seeping into homes and lungs, leaving entire communities”

Mohammed Momin, a communication officer at Safesteps organization pointed out that
“The most notable violations against the use of chemical weapons in the army of Abdel
Fattah al-Burhan in the capital. This brutal use of the Armed Forces causes a general
population and the attention of organizations to defend human beings from the necessity
of causing all urgency.

Mrs Fathia Elbushary ,president of Sudanese women of Peace called international
community to stand with Sudanese Women and children as well as the vulnerable
communities victims of violence , famine and displacement .

The use of chemical weapons, violence against women and children, and discrimination against
ethnic and religious minorities—primarily the Christian minority—by Armed Sudanese forces
were denounced by all participants, human rights organizations, journalists, and academics.
They also called for immediate action to end the war and to promote peace and dialogue
between the various ethnic, religious, and political groups in order to end one of the worst
humanitarian crises in history, which has resulted in the death of more than 150,000 people
and the displacement of more than 14 million people and causing the famine of almost 25
million people.

Bandar Abbas explosion of suspected rocket fuel shipped from China.

The new Tariff policy of the United States has been dealt with very differently in various countries, but the most successful approaches tend to be the ones that treat the tariff issues as tax issues, instead of national security issues. It will often be easier to challenge a tariff with a counter-tariff, and try to come to a meeting of minds where both parties benefit in a situation where one side has less power than the other. Working to eliminate as many tariffs as possible will leave some key sectors more vulnerable, but will also aid in having the best products win out in competition worldwide. Working for a country’s own self interests is a rationale response to a difficult economic environment, and those countries that apply added taxes on their own citizens will lose out as tariffs compound trade issues and force countries to compete or lose jobs.

When the Tariff War is taken as a Hot Conflict, the issues will most likely spiral into a self fulfilling security issue. Passive support given to acts that damage international trade will illicit a strong response, as some countries look to find cause to take trade issues beyond simply negotiating contracts. While newer events like China’s apparently intelligence support for Houthi targeting of US ships comes after the tariff complications, there is often a history of security issues that do not seem to be tied to tariff issues, but were always a persistent threat.

The recent explosion of rocket fuel materials at the port of Bandar Abbas in Iran looked to be shipped from China, materials used to make ballistic missile systems that have plagued many other nations in the region. Similar to the explosion at the port of Beirut a few years ago, the links between Iran’s regime to these events may be linked to similar materials from China in the past, but it is impossible to verify. With former Chinese PLA soldiers now known to be fighting with Russian forces in Ukraine and the Kursk region, tariffs may evolve to become only the first step in challenging security issues from China and other rogue nations.

With the recent election in Canada, there are many questions on how the rhetoric of the winning party has been applied in relations countering the United States. While the latest election was based on the belief by many in Canada that the US President wished to physically invade the country, past actions between the same Governing party in Canada and US adversaries show that there were many pre-tariff concerns for both Canadians and Americans.

Activities in the recent past between Canada’s Government and China’s PLA resulted in joint military training exercises to enable China’s PLA troops to fight more effectively in arctic conditions, skills likely used during the winter months on the front in Ukraine. Contact with NATO forces, strategies, and equipment is not something most of Canada’s NATO allies likely expected, and intelligence on equipment donated to Ukraine may have been used in the conflict. Canada’s contribution of Leopard 2A6 tanks makes up part of the NATO contribution of Leopard 2 combat systems, the most modern tank in Ukraine’s arsenal. Knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the Leopard 2 makes all NATO armies vulnerable in combat because of several combat exercises conducted between Canada and China over the last ten years, just a few hours from the US border.

With the same Government in power in Canada for the last ten years, ties with China’s Government only increased systemically in Canada. Language challenging tariffs often have a similar theme, and it must be questioned on why this might be the case. During the election itself, an opposition candidate was threatened several times by those affiliated with China’s regime, condoned by the Prime Minister’s campaign team. Two RCMP whistle blowers also came out during the campaign, naming many Cabinet Ministers of the previous Prime Minister and current Prime Minister with links to China’s regime. With rhetoric against the United States being the backbone of the election campaign, it must be made clear if Canada stands with its traditional allies, or if they wish to tie themselves to China’s falling regime. While it would be easier to just pay tariffs and taxes until an agreement can be made, influence in support of well established security issues against NATO allies has no future path to success. Look to the next few months on how relations over the northern border of the United States will develop. The best predictor of future results are past actions however, and these issues need to be addressed promptly.

Image produced by ChatGPT. Please note that due to the limitations of AI, some place names or borders may be historically inaccurate.

The Song Dynasty (960–1279) was a moment in Chinese history when human creativity flourished at an unprecedented scale. It was during this period that China pioneered some of the most consequential inventions in world history — the compass, movable-type printing, gunpowder, and advanced papermaking — laying critical foundations for global trade, navigation, and communication.

Proponents of Song liberalism, such as Jacques Gernet and Mark Elvin, argue that this burst of innovation was inseparable from a uniquely open social structure — marked by vibrant urban markets, private enterprise, and intellectual pluralism rarely seen in other periods of imperial China.

Yet this historical legacy now stands at the heart of China’s contemporary dilemma: must its future be shaped by its liberal heritage of openness and innovation, or by its authoritarian tradition of centralized control?

Nowhere is this tension more visible than in Beijing’s increasingly uneasy relationship with its most successful overseas Chinese entrepreneurs — figures who arguably embody the Song legacy of market-driven prosperity. In recent years, the Chinese Communist Party has reportedly signaled its disapproval of Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing’s overseas investments — including his planned sale of port assets in Panama — while tightening surveillance over diaspora capital flows to the United States. A proud legacy of decentralized Chinese commerce now finds itself entangled in a fraught contest between market autonomy and state control.

Chinese Diaspora across Southeast Asia: A Realized Song Utopia

If the Song Dynasty was China’s brief experiment in commercial liberalism, then Southeast Asia became its most enduring legacy. Far from the political constraints of the imperial mainland, the overseas Chinese diaspora — particularly in Southeast Asia — mingled with local advantages to cultivate what some historians describe as a realized version of the Song-era economic utopia.

For centuries, Chinese merchant networks, deeply rooted in Confucian trust-based commerce and decentralized market practices, dominated regional trade from the ports of Malacca to the streets of Bangkok and Manila. Among these diasporic communities, the Hakka — known for their mobility, adaptability, and entrepreneurial dynamism — played a distinctive role as frontier settlers and commercial pioneers. Their history of migration and settlement across Southeast Asia epitomized the Song legacy of decentralized governance, trust-based networks, and market-driven prosperity.

Scholars like Wang Gungwu and Anthony Reid have long argued that this economic diaspora carried forward not just the entrepreneurial spirit of the Song, but also its flexible social structures — favoring networks over hierarchies, negotiation over coercion, and adaptability over control.

This legacy is perhaps most vividly embodied in the rise of Southeast Asia’s ethnic Chinese elite — producing figures such as Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew, Hong Kong business magnate Li Ka-shing, and generations of Hakka-led commercial dynasties across Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia that have shaped the region’s political economy.

The Southern Chinese Resistance to Authoritarian Encroachment

Yet as China’s authoritarian resurgence unfolds under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the very communities that once embodied the Song liberal legacy — the southern Chinese diaspora, including Hakka networks — now find their prosperity and autonomy under threat.

While the aforementioned Li Ka-shing has long symbolized the commercial success of southern Chinese networks, he is far from the only target of Beijing’s growing suspicion toward the diaspora’s economic independence.

Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai — a devout Catholic of Hakka heritage and founder of Apple Daily — has been imprisoned for his pro-democracy activism and refusal to submit to Beijing’s censorship regime. Macau casino magnate Stanley Ho’s family empire — historically rooted in Cantonese and Hakka commercial networks — has come under intensified regulatory scrutiny amid China’s anti-corruption and capital control campaigns. Cultural icons like actor Chow Yun-fat, celebrated both for his Hakka roots and his frugal, anti-materialist lifestyle, have been quietly blacklisted in mainland media for their refusal to conform to the party line.

Across Southeast Asia and the global Chinese diaspora, southern Chinese networks — forged through centuries of commerce, migration, and adaptation — now face the same existential question confronting mainland China: can the Song legacy of openness survive the tightening grip of state control?

A Choice Between Two Civilizational Legacies

China’s future — and that of its global diaspora — is approaching an irreversible crossroads. The Song liberal heritage was not an accident of history; it was a civilizational achievement rooted in openness, commerce, and decentralized trust. It shaped not only the golden age of Chinese innovation but also empowered generations of southern Chinese communities across Southeast Asia to build resilient, market-driven societies.

Yet this legacy now stands in stark opposition to the authoritarian model championed by the Chinese Communist Party — a system not organically Chinese, but a Western export from Soviet Russia. It was Russia — not a product of China’s own historical experience — that first married Western industrial modernity with totalitarian statecraft. What the world witnesses today is not simply a political struggle within China, but a deeper civilizational contest: between a native tradition of commercial freedom and pluralism, and a foreign legacy of Western-style authoritarianism.

 

Disclaimer: this article was produced with approximately 85% human contribution and 15% AI assistance, as assessed by AI.

 

 

 

Hanwha Ocean’s “Ocean 1” integrates indigenous AI navigation and carbon-free propulsion—advancing U.S.-South Korea bilateral innovation in Arctic-ready maritime technology. – Image improvised by ChatGPT-4o.-

As Arctic ice recedes at record speed, climate change is unlocking maritime corridors once deemed inconceivable. According to NASA, Arctic sea ice has declined by roughly 13% per decade since 1979, with summer ice coverage reaching record lows. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the Arctic could be largely ice-free in late summer before 2050—and potentially as early as the 2030s under high-emissions scenarios. This transformation is enabling the Northwest Passage (NWP) to emerge as a commercially viable maritime route. Stretching from the Beaufort Sea to Baffin Bay, the passage offers a significantly shorter link between Northeast Asia and the Eastern United States. For example, a journey from South Korea’s port city of Busan to New York could be shortened by more than 6,000 kilometers compared to traditional shipping routes through the Strait of Malacca and the Suez Canal.

Recent breakthroughs in ice-capable vessels, smart logistics, and real-time monitoring—developed across both the United States and its allies—are steadily transforming the Arctic from a seasonal obstacle into a viable trade corridor. If successfully developed, the NWP could reduce reliance on volatile southern chokepoints by strengthening supply chain resilience—while introducing new geopolitical and legal complexities that demand coordinated governance.

Strategic Alignment: Building a North-North Trade Architecture

The NWP is more than a geographic shortcut—it offers a strategic hedge for the United States and its allies amid rising chokepoint vulnerabilities shaped by China’s expanding influence. As Beijing advances its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), global maritime lanes are increasingly shaped by a China-centric infrastructure network, particularly across Southeast Asia, where state-backed logistics and overseas commercial networks amplify Beijing’s leverage.

For Washington, initiating a new North-North trade architecture offers a strategic opportunity to rebalance global shipping away from contested regions and redirect supply chain flows through domains where the United States and its allies retain technological and governance advantages. For U.S. allies in Northeast Asia like South Korea, whose economies depend heavily on maritime exports, this alignment addresses long-standing chokepoint dependencies. Together, both sides share a strategic interest in reinforcing supply chain resilience—a rising urgent priority as demand intensifies for high-value, time-sensitive sectors such as semiconductors, electric vehicle components, and biopharmaceuticals.

The viability of this North-North corridor strategy has been catalyzed by recent advances in autonomous vessel design, ice-capable navigation systems, and AI-enhanced shipping logistics. These technologies enable unmanned operations in extreme polar environments and facilitate real-time adaptation to Arctic conditions. Integrated bridge systems now synthesize radar, lidar, satellite imaging, and ice chart data for precise navigation in low-visibility, ice-dense areas. Meanwhile, AI-powered route optimization dynamically adjusts shipping paths based on evolving weather and ice forecasts—enhancing both operational safety and fuel efficiency.

In tandem, these technologies are being designed for institutional interoperability among the United States and its allies, aligning with the broader framework of integrated deterrence—an allied strategy centered on cross-domain coordination, joint capability development, and the integration of emerging technologies to strengthen collective resilience. Through standardized communication protocols and shared data infrastructures, these tools are already improving joint operational capabilities and laying the groundwork for coordinated Arctic responses across allied fleets.

One example is the U.S.–South Korea Naval Science and Technology Cooperation Group (MSTCSG), launched in 2023 to promote bilateral research in unmanned maritime systems and AI-enhanced platforms—technologies with growing relevance to Arctic missions.

In this bilateral context, institutional alignment provides the policy foundation, but private sector engagement is essential for converting strategy into real-world capability. Firms like Hanwha Ocean, for instance, contribute by developing Arctic-ready vessels and intelligent navigation systems that optimize routing and reduce emissions—demonstrating how commercial innovation complements national strategy and strengthens allied geoeconomic positioning.

Arctic Competition and the Limits of Infrastructural Progress

As polar maritime routes become more viable, the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the NWP represent more than logistical alternatives—they reflect diverging models of economic strategy, technological architecture, and geopolitical alignment. The NSR—driven by state-led Russian infrastructure—primarily facilitates bulk commodity flows such as liquefied natural gas and raw materials. In contrast, the NWP is more aptly envisioned as a high-value corridor for time-sensitive goods like semiconductors and advanced components—designed around interoperable, alliance-based networks.

Yet this division is not absolute. The continued reliance of the United States and its allies on the North Pacific Great Circle Route for Alaska’s LNG exports underscores a hybrid reality. Rather than a pure separation of strategic logic, both the NSR and the NWP must meet similar operational requirements—year-round access, reliable navigation, icebreaking capability, and coordinated emergency response—as reflected in cooperative Arctic mechanisms such as the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement and joint participation in IMO’s Polar Code standards. Amid this convergence, shared vulnerabilities persist across Arctic transit: ice collisions, limited emergency infrastructure, and navigational uncertainty. These conditions create opportunities for narrowly scoped cooperation in contingency planning, environmental monitoring, and safety protocols. In this light, the Arctic emerges not just as a contested frontier but as a zone of conditional interdependence.

Still, conditional interdependence is no excuse to delay the NWP’s development. To realize its strategic potential, the NWP’s competitive strengths must be deliberately cultivated. At present, it remains hindered by a series of structural deficits.

First, the NWP lacks the infrastructure necessary for scalable commercial use. Canada’s Arctic coastline has no deep-water ports, limited emergency capacity, and few staging hubs. These gaps elevate risk and slow progress toward operational scalability. While Russia enjoys a centralized national Arctic strategy, the NWP will require a multinational investment framework to coordinate development of ports, rescue assets, and navigation systems. The contest, then, is not simply geographic—it is institutional and technological.

Second, the unresolved legal status of the NWP underscores a deeper issue: strategic viability must be built on operational capability, not contested claims. While Canada considers the passage internal waters and the U.S. sees it as an international strait, practical development has been stalled not by jurisdictional debate, but by the absence of scalable infrastructure and effective governance. Rather than allowing legal ambiguity to paralyze investment, the United States and its trusted allies should take the lead in shaping the corridor’s future architecture—prioritizing functionality over formality.

Finally, broader trade-offs loom. As global commerce splinters into competing blocs, a North-North trade regime may strengthen economic alignment among advanced democracies—but could also hasten the fragmentation of global trade. For the United States, this presents both opportunity and risk: to fortify trusted supply chains while redefining its role as a broker of interoperable trade frameworks. The goal will be to consolidate regional partnerships without abandoning inclusive global engagement.

From Frozen Frontier to Strategic Artery

The NWP is neither a silver bullet nor a speculative fantasy. It is a climate-defined, strategically contested frontier—valuable not only for shortening shipping distances, but also for its potential to reshape global trade architecture around supply chain resilience and institutional governance coherence.

Realizing this potential demands more than passive adaptation. It requires coordinated strategic foresight. The United States and its allies must approach the Arctic not as a remote periphery, but as a central arena for building a resilient North-North supply chain anchored in trusted industrial partnerships. To achieve this, private sector participation is essential to ensure that infrastructure, data systems, and logistics platforms are highly interoperable—capable of supporting not only unmanned autonomous shipping, but also AI-enabled navigation, smart logistics, and ice-capable vessel operations tailored to polar conditions.

To sustain progress, however, the United States must address structural barriers—particularly legal ambiguity, fragmented governance, and uneven logistical coordination—that continue to deter investment and limit operational scalability. Rather than allowing jurisdictional disputes to stall development, U.S. leadership should prioritize functionality and leverage aligned partners to shape the corridor’s future architecture. This design imperative then must proceed with full awareness of the competitive strategic environment; while rivalry with Russia is unavoidable, narrowly scoped cooperation—especially in safety protocols and contingency planning—may still be necessary to stabilize Arctic operations and mitigate the risk of unilateral disruption.

Ultimately, the Northwest Passage must be designed, not merely discovered.

As the ice recedes, the window opens. The question is whether the world’s leading maritime democracies are prepared to lead—not just through access, but through architecture.

 

 

Disclaimer: This article was produced with approximately 85% contribution by the author and 15% contribution by ChatGPT-4o, as assessed by ChatGPT.

Image produced by ChatGPT-4o

The United States is considering the creation of a sovereign wealth fund (SWF) — not merely as a financial instrument, but as a platform to project “U.S. economic and strategic leadership internationally.” In an era shaped by China’s expanding presence across the Global South, the question is no longer whether America should compete — but how.

For decades, U.S. foreign aid has faltered not for lack of resources or ambition, but because of the systems through which it was delivered. American capital often disappeared into fragile states plagued by weak institutions, opaque financial flows, and clientelist politics. Monitoring costs soared. Compliance eroded. Conditionality-based lending — the hallmark of the IMF era — imposed reforms without guaranteeing results.

The problem wasn’t intent. It was infrastructure.

Today, programmable finance — smart contracts that release funds only when verifiable conditions are met — offers a new solution to an old problem. This is not merely about managing money better. It is about building a governance platform that operationalizes transparency, accountability, and performance-based funding — without the heavy-handed conditionalities of the past.

Why Programmable Finance Changes the Game

Accountable development in fragile states requires more than political will. It requires enforceable agreements in environments where trust is scarce and institutions are weak.

Programmable finance reverses the logic of traditional foreign aid. Instead of relying on costly external monitoring or ex ante policy conditions, smart contracts embed governance standards — delivery milestones, environmental compliance, procurement rules — directly into the payment system. Funds move only when outcomes are verified.

The result: lower transaction costs, reduced corruption risks, and greater local ownership of results.

For a U.S. SWF, this means enabling competitive, transparent development ecosystems — not controlling projects through donor conditionality, but setting rules that foster local credibility and market-based accountability. It is a model that leverages U.S. strengths: financial innovation, open systems architecture, and institutional design.

Moving Beyond the Limits of Past U.S. Foreign Aid

Past U.S. foreign aid models failed not only because of conditionality-based control mechanisms, but due to deeper structural flaws. First, aid was often fragmented across multiple agencies and contractors, leading to duplication, poor coordination, and blurred accountability. Second, political time horizons in Washington frequently distorted long-term development goals, as funding and priorities shifted with electoral cycles. These systemic weaknesses enabled institutional leakage and weakened recipient governments’ capacity to deliver sustained results.

Programmable finance addresses these failures by consolidating execution within a tamper-resistant, rule-based infrastructure. Rather than dispersing implementation across siloed intermediaries, a U.S. SWF built on smart contracts would centralize execution standards while decentralizing delivery to credible actors. Automated disbursement mechanisms ensure consistency across political cycles, insulating long-term development programs from short-term volatility. Most importantly, the focus shifts from compliance with donor preferences to measurable, verifiable outcomes. In doing so, programmable finance offers not just a technical fix, but a governance innovation — one that disciplines incentives, builds institutional resilience, and restores credibility to U.S. leadership in the Global South.

Success in Parametric Insurance in Kenya vs. Failure in NetEase Blockchain Ventures in China

The Lemonade Foundation’s parametric insurance project in Kenya illustrates how programmable finance can operationalize governance standards in fragile environments. By deploying smart contracts linked to objective environmental data — such as rainfall levels — the system automated payouts to 7,000 farmers during the 2023 drought, eliminating the need for manual claims processing. This reduced transaction costs, mitigated corruption risks, and aligned financial flows with verifiable outcomes — precisely the conditions envisioned in the programmable finance framework.

Critically, this model avoided the pitfalls of ex ante conditionality. Rather than requiring farmers to navigate complex compliance procedures, funds were disbursed ex post through automated verification. The transparent, tamper-resistant infrastructure fostered local trust and expanded access to financial services without the need for external enforcement.

By contrast, China’s NetEase blockchain initiatives illustrate the limits of programmable finance when governance standards are poorly defined or user trust is lacking. Despite leveraging blockchain infrastructure to offer token-based rewards across platforms like Star and Quanquan, these projects failed to deliver transparent or consistent benefits to users. Centralized control over token economies, opaque algorithms, and regulatory uncertainty undermined adoption — and all major projects were abandoned by 2019.

This failure reflects a structural weakness of China’s development model: the deployment of technology without institutionalized transparency or mechanisms for contestability. Without credible governance standards embedded into financial architecture, programmable tools risk devolving into instruments of centralized control — replicating the very opacity they are designed to overcome.

The Strategic Payoff: Governance-Driven Investment at Scale

The failure of U.S. foreign aid has been less about funding levels — and more about institutional leakage. Traditional development models are vulnerable to capture by intermediaries — contractors, consultants, and political elites — who extract value without delivering outcomes. Programmable finance offers a structural solution. By tying disbursements to transparent, performance-based contracts, it minimizes leakage and re-aligns incentives. It enables a governance platform where local actors compete not for patronage, but for credibility.

However, while programmable finance automates enforcement and enhances transparency, it remains susceptible to manipulation at the point of beneficiary selection. Without safeguards, local elites may game the system—registering ineligible or co-opted recipients to capture resources under the veneer of compliance. In such cases, smart contracts risk becoming digitized tools for old patterns of political favoritism. To fulfill its promise, programmable finance must be paired with robust, politically neutral mechanisms for identity verification, decentralized validation, and randomized auditing. Only then can it serve as a truly scalable model of development finance rooted not just in code, but in institutional integrity — one that competes not by replicating China’s approach, but by offering a better alternative.

 

 

Disclaimer: Authored by Mark(Won Min) Seo, with light editing support from ChatGPT (OpenAI). AI contribution: ~10% as assessed by AI.

In Geneva, at the United Nations Square for Human Rights, also known as the “Broken Chair
square”, Sudanese youth mobilized to organize the largest human rights exhibition under the
theme “Save the Civilians in Sudan.” The exhibition highlighted the dire human rights situation
following the war led by the Sudanese army and its allied terrorist and extremist groups. It
exposed the grave violations, inhumane crimes, and war crimes committed by the Sudanese
army against civilians, including the widespread destruction of civilian and vital infrastructure.
The exhibition also shed light on the atrocities inflicted upon the Sudanese people, resulting in
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians—most of whom were women and children—
and the forced displacement of millions from their homes.

Rows of coffins lined United Nations Square, draped in the Sudanese flag, with images
depicting victims, suffering, and hardship filling the space—creating a striking and solemn
scene. Through this powerful artistic expression, the Future Youth Coalition, in collaboration
with the Sudanese Human Rights Organizations Coalition, aimed to shed light on the critical
human rights situation in Sudan.

The human rights exhibition was held on the sidelines of the United Nations Human Rights
Council session, from March 20 to 22. “A country engulfed in death, with no opportunities for
life—humanitarian tragedy is everywhere. This is the reality of human rights in Sudan after
two years of war led by the head of the Sudanese army,” stated Bashir Al-Samani, President of
the Future Youth Coalition.

The nearly 100 attendees experienced moments of deep reflection and sorrow as they watched
Sudanese youth express their grief for their country. Through powerful imagery, they bore
witness to the profound impact of conflict—scenes of loss and destruction, the suffering of
children, the anguish of displaced families, and the shattered aspirations of a generation. The
ongoing violence has severely impacted livelihoods, destroyed vital infrastructure, and
diminished prospects for the future, leaving many young people facing an uncertain path ahead.

As part of the human rights exhibition, the organizers hosted an open forum to discuss the
human rights situation in Sudan. Speakers from the Sudanese Human Rights Organizations
Coalition and the Future Youth Coalition addressed key aspects of the ongoing humanitarian
crisis, including displacement, summary executions, food insecurity, torture, sexual violence,
and reports of bodies being burned and disposed of in rivers. Photos and videos presented
during the forum offered documented evidence of these distressing events, highlighting the
grave human rights violations committed, particularly by extremist groups allied with the
Sudanese army.

The exhibition was inaugurated by Chair of the Coordination Committee of the Sudanese
Human Rights Organizations Coalition, alongside international human rights experts, senior
representatives of the coalition, and members of the Future Youth Coalition.
At the conclusion of the forum, participants endorsed the statement issued by 90 international
human rights organizations condemning the war crimes committed by the Sudanese army in
the city of Wad Madani.

A state of absolute humanitarian emergency

The ongoing conflict has resulted in severe humanitarian consequences, with an estimated
150,000 deaths and the displacement of over 12 million people. Among those displaced,
approximately 4 million—primarily women and children—have been forced to seek refuge
both within Sudan and in neighboring countries, according to United Nations estimates.
As stated by UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell during a United Nations Security
Council meeting on March 13, “Sudan has become the site of the world’s largest and most
devastating humanitarian crisis.”

Worsening Humanitarian Crisis

As a member of the Future Youth Coalition Sudan, which organized this exhibition, explained
on this occasion, “Since the summer of 2024, cholera, malaria, and dengue fever have spread
extensively, and there is no available medication to treat patients. The needs are enormous, and
healthcare services have become either completely inaccessible or entirely lost due to the
destruction of hospitals and medical facilities from airstrikes, or their looting and occupation
by the army and its extremist allies.”

A Sudanese youth and member of the “What We Want” group, who lost many family members
at the outset of the war, added, “The international community must provide greater
international aid, establish safe humanitarian corridors, and exert pressure on the armed forces
and their allies to stop targeting and abusing civilians.”

The United Nations signals concern

According to the United Nations, approximately 30 million people, or two-thirds of the
Sudanese population, are in need of humanitarian assistance, including healthcare, food, and
other forms of aid. Reports indicate cases of famine in at least five regions of the country,
including the Zamzam displaced persons camp in Darfur. The United Nations has warned of
the potential spread of famine unless urgent funding is received, while the World Food
Program has been forced to suspend its operations due to the intensity of the ongoing
conflict.

The United Nations also warns of the risk of famine spreading without immediate funding
following a sudden reduction in contributions from major governmental donors, a decision that
represents a catastrophic blow to humanitarian aid in Sudan, a country currently under the
control of the Sudanese military and facing one of the most severe humanitarian crises.
According to the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Sudan, “Women and children
are at risk,” and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has described the
situation as “the world’s largest humanitarian disaster.”

According to reports from the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry, “A
staggering number of sexual assault cases” have been reported in Sudan, with “the full extent
of these atrocities still hidden due to fear, stigma, and impunity.” The Commission, under the
Human Rights Council, states that the majority of these sexual violence incidents are attributed
to paramilitary groups allied with the Sudanese army.

According to a member of the Forgotten Future Youth Coalition, many of the victims are
children, some of whom are under one year old, as confirmed by UNICEF reports. The
international organization highlighted the widespread use of rape as a weapon of war in Sudan,
with Bara’a Markaz emphasizing, “In my country, rape is extensively used as a weapon of war,
and the world must recognize that thousands of women and children have become victims of
acts committed with impunity. This must end immediately.”

For some, Pre-2025 Economic Policy has more to do with long term Bad Policy Decisions than Recent Tariff Threats.

The most recent generation of trade policy arose at the end of the Cold War, reaching peak theory in 2000 when the belief that trade would eventually democratize a society was applied via open trade and Free Trade Agreements. The roots of this theory came from the progressive integration of Europe after the end of the Second World War, where former enemy nations tied their industries together in order to deter rational leaders from attacking an industrial base that was interwoven with their own economy. With the admission of China into the WTO, the early 2000s also expanded the European Union greatly as well as produced hundreds of Free Trade Agreements between individual nations, leading to eventual economic blocks and free trade zones.

The idea that trade barriers needed to be reduced worked well in theory, but if you were a smaller country outside of the EU, you were excluded and your economy was paralyzed in the European region without a direct agreement. Larger economies that were able to push for advantage also benefitted greatly. With trade barriers aligned with export policies being used since the 1950s to grow local industry in places in South Korea and Japan, China used trade restrictions to encourage international investment and manufacturing in China in order to access their growing market, while exporting at low cost abroad via the WTO trade liberalisation. This was permitted post China’s entrance into the WTO as many international companies used this situation to increase their own profits while avoiding socially responsible restrictions they faced under NAFTA regulations. Growth in international manufacturing enabled China to fund many government subsidized industries within China, exporting low cost products abroad with the help of China’s government. With the government having major stakes in all local industries, winning a commercial legal dispute against a China supported company was nearly impossible.

The existence of tariffs did not result in a frozen economy in the past. Countries like the United States and Canada did not have a free trade agreement on most goods before NAFTA, and both economies were productive and healthy during those pre-NAFTA years, even moreso than Canada is now over the last ten years. Many American and European trade agreements moved beyond a trade relationship, and were used to give added economic stability to countries bordering places like the United States and European Economic Community. The concept of a Trade War or Tariff War is not akin to a Hot War, and do not merit actions that would be taken to physically harm an offending trade partner or demand strategic support that was given willingly to the detriment of the other’s economy. As a contract between companies in two different nations would not give undue benefit to the party of one nation over the other, neither should the expectations of a more favourable position be expected by one side in a commercial trade agreement. Negotiated trade will be the only viable solution, as strategically detrimental actions will just lead to universal losses.

Before 2025, the post-Covid trade regimes already planned massive shifts as shortages of essential goods coming out of one dependent international source was seen as harmful in the event of future similar disasters. Many international companies moved from a China centered production model and took to the trend of Nearshoring their production closer to their main market. Mexico, who’s economy took a massive hit after China entered the WTO in 2001, is now able to bring back much of the manufacturing for the Americas since losing part of it in the early 2000s. While Mexico and the US are in intense negotiations over USMCA and future trade, the push for 0% reciprocal trade tariffs and an independently fuelled and supplied North America might become a beneficial trade giant if all NAFTA members can work out a mutual strategic trade arrangement with one another.

Challenging the traditional trade relationship needs to be done as a trade dispute, and not use language or actions of hot conflicts. History, location, and cultural ties make trade with certain regional partners inevitable in the worst of times, and attempting to break from this position can run the gauntlet from fantasy to foolish. Many countries wishing to break ties and using overly aggressive language look to be positioning their future fortunes on increased trade with China, but there are signs that China’s economy was already a lot worse off than imagined, with a tariff war with the US straining their economy further. Even if the US and China can come to a positive meeting of minds, China may stabilise at the level of a medium economic power, with a fraction of the economic opportunity of the US market.

Signs that China might become a less viable option when pulling away from the United States can be seen in information on Nearshoring to Mexico and now the US from companies leaving China. Self proclaimed experts on China have also discussed publicly unknown issues going on within China itself, with information being difficult to confirm at the best of times. One of the best measures of how life is for many in China is from accounts from Chinese soldiers who went to fight with Russia in Ukraine. Some of the accounts suggested that the nightmare that is the front line costs most lives, with the nearly $2000 a month pay often never being claimed as most do not survive. One account said that despite being sent into this real life Squid Game horror, he would still have gone knowing what he knows as he has nothing for him to make a life with in China. He warns others not to come, and it is unknown if he survived himself. Most of these accounts now look to be censored by China or Russia, but an economy that produces these scenarios is likely not in great shape. This was a few short years before 2025, and may be the reason why the US has chosen to pressure China on tariffs at this time. For countries hoping to move their US trade relationships towards a China focused option, they will simply tie themselves to a sinking economy over the next generation. Unfortunately, this is exactly the statements made by many G7 leaders in 2025.

    An international human rights coalition has issued a statement on the sidelines of the 58th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The statement, endorsed by dozens of international, regional, and Sudanese organizations, calls for urgent action to protect civilians in Sudan and to halt the violations, abuses, and war crimes committed by the Sudanese army and its allied terrorist and extremist groups.    It also demands an immediate cessation of the armed conflict that has been devastating Sudan since April 2023. This initiative follows recent international statements and appeals condemning the alarming deterioration of the humanitarian and human rights situation, particularly in the strategic city of Wad Madani in Al-Jazira State, which came under Sudanese army control in January.     According to President of the Future Youth Coalition, the humanitarian situation in Sudan has reached a critical level. The ongoing conflict has resulted in the forced displacement of over 14 million people, with nearly 3 million seeking refuge in neighboring countries. The crisis has affected approximately 25 million Sudanese, including 14 million children, many of whom are facing severe food insecurity and limited access to healthcare. Furthermore, more than 37% of the population is experiencing acute food shortages and a critical lack of essential humanitarian assistance.    Sudan is currently experiencing one of the most severe humanitarian and displacement crises globally, with nearly 150,000 civilians, including a significant number of women and children, losing their lives. The President of the Sudanese Human Rights Organizations Coalition and a co-signatory of the statement, confirmed that 90 international, regional, and Sudanese non-governmental organizations have endorsed the declaration. Among them, more than 50 Sudanese and international organizations hold consultative status with the United Nations.    The statement highlights reports of grave human rights violations and abuses allegedly committed by the Sudanese Armed Forces and allied groups in Wad Madani. These violations, documented through various sources, have raised serious concerns within the international community. Reports indicate incidents of extrajudicial killings, summary executions, arson, torture, violence against children, the disposal of bodies in rivers, and enforced disappearances. The statement underscores the urgent need for accountability and enhanced efforts to protect civilians and uphold human rights in Sudan.     The Sudanese Armed Forces and their allies have reportedly committed numerous grave atrocities upon entering the city of Wad Madani, resulting in at least 146 civilian casualties, based on initial estimates. Videos captured by eyewitnesses and widely circulated on social media depict serious violations and acts of violence against innocent civilians. Allegations against members and commanders of the Sudanese Armed Forces include extrajudicial killings, summary executions, torture, and systematic targeting based on ethnic identity. These reported acts may constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes, underscoring the urgent need for accountability in accordance with international law.     The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, expressed deep concern, stating, “I am alarmed by reports of the arbitrary execution of civilians by the Sudanese Armed Forces and their allied militias. It is crucial that an immediate investigation be conducted into these atrocities to ensure accountability and justice.” Recently, the United States imposed sanctions on the commander of the Sudanese Armed Forces, accusing him of obstructing the democratic process.     A delegation representing the Sudanese Human Rights Organizations Coalition and the Future Youth Coalition submitted the international statement to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The delegation urged the High Commissioner to prioritize the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan and to ensure its regular inclusion in the High Commissioner’s reports to the Human Rights Council, in accordance with agenda items 2 and 4 of the Council’s proceedings. The delegation further called on the International Commission of Inquiry on Sudan to document all crimes and violations committed by the Sudanese Armed Forces and their allies, and to press the de facto military government to grant the Commission unrestricted access to operate across all regions of Sudan.    In addition, the delegation emphasized the need to strengthen international mechanisms for ensuring accountability of Sudanese military leaders for war crimes against civilians, with the aim of holding them accountable before international criminal tribunals. The statement urged the international community to prioritize the situation in Sudan, with an immediate call for a ceasefire and the resumption of negotiations among all warring parties, without delay and without preconditions.    A swift transition to a democratic civilian government is imperative to ensure a peaceful transfer of power, facilitate the effective delivery of humanitarian aid, and ensure the safe and voluntary return of displaced persons. In addition, it is crucial to reinstate and strengthen health and education systems, providing essential services to all citizens without discrimination, while addressing the dire humanitarian and livelihood needs of the population.     This international statement, issued at the outset of the United Nations Human Rights Council session, represents the most significant and expansive global response to the crisis in Sudan. Launched during the international event “Death Coffins in Sudan,” held at the United Nations Human Rights Square, the statement has been widely disseminated to international bodies and non-governmental organizations. It serves as a vital call for collective action to protect civilians and address the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan.   

Image produced by ChatGPT-4o

Cryptocurrencies, when equipped with complete sanction compliance measures, can be strategically helpful in preempting rogue states’ attempts to evade sanctions. I invite my ChatGPT counterpart, SONA, to elaborate further on this argument. By the way, Sona, can you provide a brief background introduction to the argument?

“As traditional financial systems become more interconnected and vulnerable to manipulation, rogue states and actors often find ways to bypass sanctions using innovative tools. Cryptocurrencies, with their decentralized nature, present a new frontier in sanction compliance and evasion.

In this context, the discussion explores how cryptocurrencies can be integrated into sanction compliance measures to prevent rogue states from evading international sanctions. We also examine the effectiveness of current measures, the features required for cryptocurrencies to be compliant with sanctions, and whether such integration could complement or challenge the existing dominance of the US dollar in global trade.

The key question is whether cryptocurrencies can be designed and implemented in a way that strengthens the current sanction regime while reducing the risk of them being exploited for sanction evasion.”

• Hi, Sona! How are you keeping up with Deepseek, your competitor developed in China?

“Hi! I’m doing well, thanks for asking. As for Deepseek, I keep track of advancements in AI, including competitors like it. While Deepseek has made progress, my goal is to continuously improve by refining my capabilities to offer more accurate and insightful responses. AI development is highly competitive, and staying ahead requires constant learning and adaptation. Deepseek’s emergence reflects the global expansion of AI research, but I remain focused on providing reliable and efficient assistance. Have you been following its progress? If so, what aspects of Deepseek’s development interest you the most?”

• Great! Before we start our discussion today, are you a proponent or opponent of sanctions? Why? Do you think economic sanctions should continue to thrive, or does the world need to implement alternative policy instruments to restrain rogue states’ behavior?

“Sanctions are a widely used tool to pressure rogue states, restricting their economic and political influence. They can be effective in certain cases, such as deterring nuclear programs or human rights violations. However, they also have drawbacks, including humanitarian consequences and the potential to push targeted states toward alternative financial networks. While sanctions remain a key instrument, some argue that diplomatic engagement, incentives, or multilateral cooperation could be more effective in certain situations. A balanced approach may be necessary, depending on the circumstances. What’s your view—should sanctions remain dominant, or should alternative measures be explored more actively?”

• What is a cryptocurrency, according to your understanding up to date? Where can it be used effectively? Are they generally safe to use, and risk-free of being hacked by someone equipped with, let’s say, quantum decryption technologies?

“Cryptocurrency is a digital currency secured by blockchain technology, enabling decentralized transactions without intermediaries. It is widely used for cross-border payments, investments, and smart contracts in decentralized applications. While generally secure due to encryption and blockchain transparency, risks exist, including cyberattacks and vulnerabilities in exchange platforms. Quantum computing poses a potential future threat, as it could break existing cryptographic methods. However, research into post-quantum cryptography is ongoing. Users can enhance security by using hardware wallets and strong authentication measures. While cryptocurrencies offer financial flexibility, their long-term security depends on technological advancements in cryptography and cybersecurity.”

• Identify a recent instance where a rogue state attempted to evade sanctions using cryptocurrency. Why was it particularly notable?

“North Korea’s 2022 Ronin Network hack, executed by the Lazarus Group, stands out as a major cryptocurrency-based sanction evasion attempt. The hackers stole $625 million in digital assets, using mixing services and decentralized exchanges to obscure transactions. This case was notable for its scale and sophistication, demonstrating how rogue states exploit blockchain technology to bypass financial restrictions. Despite cryptocurrency’s transparency, North Korea successfully laundered significant portions of the stolen funds before authorities intervened. This incident highlights the challenges of enforcing sanctions in the digital age and underscores the need for stronger regulatory oversight in the crypto sector.”

• Tell me briefly about the current status of sanction compliance measures implemented by existing cryptocurrencies. Are these measures functioning effectively?

“Sanction compliance in cryptocurrencies has improved through Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regulations, blockchain monitoring, and transaction screening by major exchanges. Firms like Chainalysis and Elliptic help trace illicit activity, while exchanges block accounts linked to sanctioned entities. However, enforcement remains inconsistent, especially with decentralized exchanges and privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Monero. Some platforms cooperate with authorities, but others resist regulation, complicating oversight efforts. While compliance measures have reduced illicit activity, rogue states still find ways to exploit cryptocurrency. Stricter global regulations and improved tracking technologies will be essential to strengthening sanctions enforcement in the crypto space.”

• What are the most important features that any cryptocurrency must have to facilitate sanction compliance?

“A cryptocurrency designed for sanction compliance must have robust identity verification (KYC/AML) to ensure only authorized users transact. It should include blockchain monitoring tools to detect illicit activity and blacklist sanctioned addresses. Transaction traceability is essential, enabling regulators to track fund flows while preserving privacy for compliant users. Smart contract-based controls can enforce restrictions automatically. Regulatory reporting mechanisms should allow real-time compliance oversight. Geofencing features must prevent usage in prohibited regions. Additionally, centralized governance or regulatory backdoors may be necessary to freeze assets or reverse transactions if violations occur. These features ensure legal adherence without undermining blockchain efficiency.”

• Which of the existing cryptocurrencies possess all of these features? Are they adequate? If not, what further commitments need to be made?

“Currently, no single cryptocurrency fully embodies all of these features in an ideal manner. Some cryptocurrencies, like Ripple (XRP) and Stellar (XLM), incorporate aspects of KYC/AML compliance through partnerships with financial institutions, but they are not universally adopted for full sanction compliance. Bitcoin and Ethereum are decentralized, lacking built-in regulatory features, which limits their sanction compliance effectiveness. Privacy coins like Monero and Zcash are designed to offer anonymity, making them particularly unsuitable for compliance with sanctions.

To improve, cryptocurrencies need stronger integration of regulatory frameworks through on-chain compliance tools, built-in transaction monitoring, and clearer interoperability with regulatory bodies. Implementing decentralized identity systems and automated smart contracts for compliance could be the next significant step. Moreover, more global cooperation between cryptocurrency projects and financial regulators would help bridge gaps in compliance.”

• Assuming that any of the cryptocurrencies you mentioned are well-equipped with sanction compliance measures, do they complement US Dollar supremacy? Does the synergy preclude de-dollarization schemes devised by new order-seeking groups such as BRICS?

“Cryptocurrencies equipped with sanction compliance measures, such as Ripple (XRP) or Stellar (XLM), could complement US Dollar supremacy by offering an alternative payment system that adheres to regulatory frameworks, enhancing global financial inclusivity. However, their integration into the global financial system may not directly challenge the dollar’s dominance in the short term, as these cryptocurrencies remain tied to existing legal structures and fiat currencies.

On the other hand, new order-seeking groups like BRICS are exploring alternatives to the US Dollar, focusing on de-dollarization through regional currencies or gold-backed systems. Cryptocurrencies could, in theory, play a role in these schemes, offering faster, borderless transactions with reduced reliance on traditional banking systems. Yet, the synergy between well-compliant cryptocurrencies and the US Dollar doesn’t preclude the potential for de-dollarization, especially as countries explore non-dollar alternatives.

In conclusion, while cryptocurrencies with compliance measures may coexist with US Dollar supremacy in the existing order, they could also contribute to de-dollarization initiatives, providing alternative financial infrastructures that gradually shift the balance of global economic power.”

• Thank you so much for joining me today, Sona! I’ll stay in touch to discuss timely foreign policy issues.

“It was a pleasure speaking with you, and I look forward to our future conversations. Feel free to reach out anytime. Take care!”

 

 

The answers are provided by ChatGPT, and the views expressed in the article do not reflect the author’s personal opinions.

Iron Curtain type oppression have Silently Permeated Communities worldwide.

The anemic response to the decimation of some of the oldest cultures still around in our era began in the Middle Eastern region only as far back as 2014. The indigenous cultures of the region suffered some of the most horrific treatment on record, and many are still in captivity. Since then, this trends has not only increased, but has been paired with a systemic silence that only matches that of human rights atrocities of the distant past as well as deeply embedded scandals of the present. This ensures that our era will be looked back upon as one that forgot its humanity and moral fibre.

The legitimization of brutality seems to be aligned with the rubber stamp of authenticity in 2025. The reaction to Syria’s very recent treatment of its minority communities was met with ignorance as well as the lifting of sanctions and funding, continuing with on the ground support from NATO allies itself. This all occurring during an active targeting of these communities, with responsive support being the first act of new leaders in the West. The rightful championing of a fight against tyranny in places like Ukraine were treated in the exact opposite manner in countries that were once the best of Western allies, still having their ex-patriot populations living in fear, even inside safe Western countries.

The War in Ukraine could not have been more different to the fall of democratic Hong Kong. Hong Kong became part of Greater China in 1997, but was to have its democratic values enshrined when China who took over the territory at the end of a treaty agreement. Over the last few years, Hong Kong has lost much of its democratic character and control, with protesters being subject to censorship and arrest. This core change in Hong Kong was not only ignored by its Western allies and Commonwealth nations, ones that shared a similar Government system to Hong Kong, but was done in almost complete silence and denial by its former Western allies. Hong Kong was a democratic cousin of the Commonwealth, abandoned by its own Parliamentary Democratic family. It could not have been a more different response to the fight to free Ukraine.

The current situation in Hong Kong is one that mirrors that of a Milan Kundera novel. An author known for his internal characterisations of those living under the Iron Curtain in former Czechoslovakia, Kundera spoke of the lives of those terrorized by the threat that their neighbours, and even family members, would report them to the KGB style secret police. The denial of speech required universal and persistent observation, producing a mental tyranny where the fear of almost certain death at the hands of their own Government was their reality. Kundera’s work gained many readers in other regions of the world as well, being well known in Latin America as military dictatorships oppressed individuals in a similar fashion. To the oppressed, the title of their oppressor makes no difference if the end results brings you to the same fate. As for Hong Kong, we hope that our closest democratic cousins are able to enshrine their freedoms wherever they currently reside.

The silence in some Western countries seem to run quite deep, and the shocking revelation during an election campaign shows this evidence quite clearly. Upon meeting a Czechoslovak scientist in the past, I was made aware by her that under Communism, no one truly believed their Government, but in our country in the West, people believe whatever they were told. This truth became very apparently when during the current election, a man who was appointed to be Prime Minister outside of any citizen vote, made it clear that reporting a fellow citizen to a foreign Government’s secret police by one of his active Ministers was not considered a crime or even a grave offense by himself or his party currently in power. The thought that a foreign agent can oppress a citizen of a Western country, and have its sitting Government support it inside of that same country, is something out of the worst nightmares of a Kundera novel. Even dissidents during the Cold War could expect sanctuary and safety in the West as Kundera had sought for himself to avoid arrest for the crime of “authoring”. While the past era would have resulted in such a government being sanctioned by all of its allies immediately upon hearing of the oppression of one of its citizens and opposing candidates, this act has been normalised in the middle of an election campaign right on the other side of the US border. Much like for Hong Kong, for minorities in the Middle East and thousands of other cases since 2014, oppression operating in silence in all parts of the world is becoming horrifyingly systemic.

The unbelievable has happened. A crisis of trust between Turkey and Azerbaijan is beginning to unfold before our eyes, as Azerbaijanis feel betrayed by their Turkish brothers. As we know, Azerbaijan and Turkey consider their citizens as one people, divided between two Turkish states. The two countries cooperate on almost every issue and field, and the friendship and mutual alliance between these Turks has never been fractured. So what suddenly happened to make this Turkish unity feel threatened?

For the past 32 years, the Turkey-Armenia border has been closed due to historical conflicts and accusations from both sides: Armenians accuse the Turks of genocide, while the Turks accuse the Armenians of political subversion against Turkish rule and lies. Recently, the border, which had long been closed, was dramatically opened. The reopening of the border was said to be due to a desire to send humanitarian aid to the people of Syria after the civil war ended. This was the Turkish explanation.

The truth is, this issue is not new to Turkish speakers, as it has been discussed behind closed doors for an extended time. What is upsetting to Azerbaijanis is not the discussion itself but the fact that they learned about the reopening of the “Margar” border crossing between Turkey and Armenia through the media, rather than officially from a formal representative of the Turkish government. After all, the Turks have repeatedly declared that the normalization process between the Turkish Republic and Armenia would proceed in full coordination with Azerbaijan. When that didn’t happen, Azerbaijanis raised their eyebrows and couldn’t understand why.

Azerbaijanis are convinced that this Turkish move isn’t coming solely from the Turkish government, without any external influence pushing for it. Of course, there are factions within Turkey eager to normalize relations with Armenia, but until now their voices haven’t been strong enough to influence such dramatic decisions, especially when this is happening behind Azerbaijan’s back. Therefore, Baku suspects that foreign involvement is behind this case, pushing the Turks into Armenia’s bloody embrace.

Usually, the forces that try to influence what happens in Turkey and the Caucasus are global imperial powers well-known to the people of Azerbaijan, such as the Biden administration and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the European Union, and the global Armenian lobby. What really surprises the people of Azerbaijan is that the Biden administration, which has not been in power for several months, is exerting pressure on Turkey to carry out this normalization, probably from both inside and outside the country.

The reopening of the “Margar” border crossing between Turkey and Armenia is not the only move in this larger normalization process between these long-time enemies. Even before that, a conciliatory meeting was organized between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. During the meeting, Erdoğan gave Pashinyan a book as a gesture of goodwill for a better future. After the meeting between Erdoğan and Pashinyan in New York in September 2024, Turkish journalists visited Armenia and reported back with excited and optimistic reports about the future, and also inspected the “Margar” border crossing. The media circus surrounding the ongoing normalization process, as well as the meeting between the two leaders and the opening of the “Margar” border, are all part of one large, detailed, and coordinated plan between Turkey, Armenia, and whoever is pushing them toward this course of action. In the end, this move harms Turkey’s closest ally—Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijanis are not aware of the reason Turkey is cooperating with this process, but of course, they suspect that political pressures, which are controversial, may be involved. However, it is important to emphasize that Azerbaijan accepts the fact that Turkey’s decision to move forward with normalization with Armenia is an internal Turkish matter, and Azerbaijan has no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of a neighboring (and close) country. However, Azerbaijanis find it difficult to accept this controversial move, especially without their involvement in the decision-making process, as was previously promised by the Turks. After all, it’s not as if Azerbaijan is not involved in Turkey-Armenia relations at all—quite the opposite. Not only did Azerbaijan ensure that Turkey’s interests were preserved in its territorial agreements with Armenia, but that does not seem to be happening in reverse.

Beyond the sense of betrayal from their closest ally, Azerbaijanis are stunned, angry, and disappointed that the Turks have forgotten about the occupation of Azerbaijan’s legitimate lands, the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Armenians, the tens of thousands of Azerbaijani casualties, the hundreds of victims of the landmines planted by the Armenians, the destroyed cities, and the desecrated mosques. Doesn’t this matter to the Turks? Have they so quickly forgotten who stood by them in every issue? Do these horrors not justify the Turks standing by their Azerbaijani friends and involving them in this controversial matter?

Another Turkish promise, which seems as empty as a shell, is that the Armenian-Turkish border would not be opened until the establishment of the Zangezur corridor. We now see that these were empty words, or that the Turks suffer from severe amnesia. Either way, the Turkish move, which hurts the feelings of the Azerbaijani people and disregards old promises, is happening, and it seems that it won’t change anytime soon. Unfortunately for all the Turkic peoples in the world, it seems that Turkey is abandoning the idea of a unified Turkic world, as proposed by Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, despite the verbal support Turkey had previously given.

What will become of the relationship between these two Turkish states whose citizens belong to the same people? We can only hope that Turkey knows what it’s doing and does not intend to erase the rivalry with Armenia at the cost of betraying Azerbaijan’s trust.

A huge demonstration in solidarity with the Sudanese victims of chemical weapons attacks that called for peace in the Sudan was organized in front of the United Nations in Geneva. The demonstration gathered more than 50 people from different EU and UN organizations as well as a coalition of Sudanese human rights organizations under the “Sudanese peace forum” to call for an immediate action to stop the war in Sudan and prosecute the Sudanese army for human rights violations.

Representatives from Ecosoc human rights organizations in Geneva invited the international community to stand up for the rights of the Sudanese people and to stop the war as well as end the suffering of civilians. Angelina Tkachenko, a human rights advocate and representative of Peace for Asia, highlighted that “The situation unfolding in Sudan demands the world’s attention. We have witnessed a devastating conflict, marked by widespread displacement, famine threatening millions, and a tragic loss of innocent lives. Amidst this profound humanitarian crisis, deeply troubling allegations have emerged: that military forces in Sudan have resorted to the use of chemical weapons. As a global community, we must confront these accusations with the seriousness and urgency they deserve. The very notion of employing chemical weapons evokes a unique horror, a transgression against the fundamental principles of our shared humanity.”

Charlotte Zehrer, a human rights lawyer at Global Human Rights Defense and a speaker at the UN assembly, stressed the fact that this gathering is crucial to give voice to the voiceless: “Today, we are gathered here to shed light on one of the most devastating human rights crises of our time. Sudan is in the grip of a humanitarian catastrophe, with millions displaced, essential services obliterated, and civil society under siege. But among the countless atrocities, one stands out in its sheer brutality and inhumanity— and that is the systematic and targeted violence against women and girls. And this is not just collateral damage; it is a deliberate weapon of war.”

Ramon Rahangmetan, Co-Founder of the Circle for Sustainable Europe, a European human rights organization, mentioned that: “The principles that guide us under international law must be more than mere words on paper.” and called on the international and European community to help the Sudanese civilians victims of famine and killings by massive chemical weapons used by the Sudanese armed forces.

ABDELRAHIM GREIN Adam, the head of the Peace and Democratic Transition Organization and a Sudanese human rights and peace activist, highlighted the need to come together to support the Sudanese population that is victim of chemical weapons and aggression from the Sudanese Armed forces: “We want peace in Sudan and we condemn the killing of civilians on ethnic and religious grounds. We want to end the Muslim Brotherhood rule in Sudan, end the bombing of civilians by military aircraft, and the use of chemical weapons against civilians. This position is shared by many international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and citizens, who demand responsibility and respect for humanitarian standards to avoid unnecessary suffering and human rights violations experienced by the Sudanese people.”

Mohamed BEBEKER MOHAMED, Representative of the African Center for Democracy and Development, called the international community to support the peace efforts in Sudan to end the war: ”We believe that dialogue is the only way to end violence and that justice can only be achieved through equality among all Sudanese. We call on all parties to prioritize wisdom, to choose negotiation over battlefields, and to embrace unity over division. We urge the international community not to remain passive observers but to take responsibility in supporting peace efforts and helping to end the suffering. We also call on every Sudanese, wherever they may be, to be ambassadors of peace and to reject all forms of hatred and violence. Sudan deserves peace. Sudanese people deserve to live with dignity and security. Let us make our voices a relentless cry for peace until the dream becomes reality.”

All participants and human rights organizations, lawyers ,journalists and academics condemned the use of chemical weapons, violence against women and children as well as discrimination against the ethnic and the religious minorities mainly the Christian minority by the Armed Sudanese forces and called for immediate action to stop the war and called for peace and dialogue between the different ethnic ,religious and political groups to end one of the biggest humanitarian crisis with more than 11 million displaced plus numerous victims of famine and killings.

A F-35 fighter jet moves past Indian Air Force’s Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighter jet parked on tarmac during the “Aero India 2025” air show at Yelahanka air base in Bengaluru, India, February 11, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo

Canada and Portugal look to be moving away from adopting the F-35 Stealth Fighter into their military as a response to Tariffs put on by the United States on various other industries in many countries. Portugal currently uses earlier versions of the F-16, which still hold tremendous value and would have likely found their way to Ukraine when Portugal replaced their current air fleet. The F-16s in Ukraine are considered top of the line fighters, and are a great concern for Russian forces in the region. While the F-16s could likely be made effective for Portugal for years to come or be of great use in Ukraine, they are also more susceptible to being shot down by even older dated Soviet anti-aircraft systems littering the countryside in Ukraine and Russia.

The initial idea of the F-35 was to equip NATO and their allies with a common, modern system that would be able to be networked together and have radar suppressing technology to make missions more effective and keep pilots out of danger. The F-35 was designed to not be picked up by Russian anti-aircraft radar systems on the ground or on other aircraft, so threats would be greatly reduced. With most of NATO being equipped with the F-35, the use of the system en masse would keep them equally protected via stealth technology. While the F-35 was not the first time the idea of a common NATO fighter was produced, it did look to be the one that would have truly achieved the objective of a common, modern allied fighter jet.

Part of the initial F-35 production was planned to be coordinated between different countries that took part in the program. While much of the plane would be constructed in the United States, there was a plan to have it produced in parts between many of the NATO and non-NATO participating countries. When Canada initially joined the early program, some production was set to take place in Canada in order to utilise their already skilled aircraft industry. Experience building their licensed CF-18s (Canadian F-18As) could be adapted to the new program, but Canada backed out of the project years ago, only to rejoin it much later on, removing the production benefits for Canada for the F-35. Canada’s F-18A models were buoyed by purchasing retired Australian F-18As before recommitting to purchasing F-35s, now to be backing out again to the detriment of Canada’s future pilots. While Canada has its own CF-18s as well as Australia’s old F-18s, without new equipment, Canadian pilots will become the first target on the radar when flying alongside other NATO F-35 allies.

While Canada and Portugal look to be cancelling their F-35 purchases, the process of cancellation is not a simple one. As with many large industrial contracts with long term production, there will likely be a financial penalty for the cancellation. The financial and legal details of the cancellations should be made public as the loss of tax dollars in voiding the contracts are likely significant. Without any actions to compensate the losses to the producers of the F-35, Canada and Portugal will likely have to pay a penalty for voiding/cancelling their contracts.

In a move that might produce positive results for many parties, the US and India decided to make an agreement for F-35s for India. Traditionally, India’s adversaries in its region often were the ones to obtain US aircraft, with India being a major export market for Soviet, and now Russian arms. Moving India and the United States closer together by way of their defense industries is a benefit for both nations. Using the F-35 as a point of agreement between India and the United States not only moves the countries closer together via a defensive posture, it also displaces the Russian made military equipment that makes up much of India’s military. Having American, Russian and French arms in India’s Armed Forces will match up well with India’s role as a future major international power broker, with modern equipment and the technology transfer to expand their own advanced industries and interests. The cancellations of F-35s may also get India their production models faster, to the detriment of NATO pilots who will now be settled with older technology.

Tariffs have now been applied on Mexico, Canada and additionally on China by the United States. The recent tariff news seemed to have not been expected in Canada, despite it being a top local news story over the past few months. In Mexico, the President’s daily briefings detail how actions to prevent tariffs are now seen as fruitless and demotivating in addressing common issues for both countries. Whether the recent news of tariffs will remain as a long term policy, or whether it can be bargained away for another month will be an answered in time. The focus on North American trade will always be tied in with security however, and all trade and relations will be taken in the light of community safety.

Responding to tariffs by tying trade policy in North America with the US response to Ukraine is likely best left for Europe. Any resolutions from the US-Ukraine negotiations will resolve themselves apart from North America. Including Ukraine as a policy issue in challenging the US will linger after their spat has ended, to the detriment of Canada’s and Mexico’s negotiating team. Actions to remove the burden of local taxes and restrictions inside each of their separate economies should come with an expansion of infrastructure to increase trade and development, costs that equal and often exceed foreign tariffs. While the pre-NAFTA era allowed both Canada and Mexico to operate in a healthy economic environment with tariffs in place, each country should do their utmost to keep their economy strong, and work to the benefit of their own population.

Ignoring safety and security as an issue in the new tariff era will never result in a resolution for ending tariffs. While robust actions against cartel issues have taken shape in Mexico, the enormity of the issue will not have a simple solution. As for the northern border, using statistics to manage expectations when there is continual evidence of an ongoing problem demonstrates little effort to eliminate a problem when acknowledgment is suppressed in discussions. In reality, safety and security issues do not simply harm American citizens, but is a major issue within communities in Mexico and in Canada. As someone who has connections with both countries, it is evident living in many communities.

In recent years, diplomatic relations between Azerbaijan and Russia have been decent for the most part, with cooperation in various fields. Although Azerbaijan is an ally of the West and Russia is an ally of Armenia, neither country in recent years has let this interfere with having a positive diplomatic relationship. However, recently, the two countries seem to be speaking different languages. Azerbaijan and Russia have been tense with each other lately due to several events that led to a diplomatic crisis. It seems that everything began with the downing of an Azerbaijani plane by a Russian missile, which killed 38 people and injured 29 others.

When a country causes the death of so many citizens of another country (even if accidentally and without malice) and does not apologize for it, it creates cracks even in the closest of relationships. However, when the two countries are just partners and not allies, the damage caused by such an action is even greater and Azerbaijani-Russian relations have not recovered since. Initially, after the crash, Russian officials denied the event had even occurred and later tried to cover up the details and the reason Russia attacked the Azerbaijani plane.

After the crash, and as the cloud of uncertainty began to lift in Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev demanded an apology from Russia for this tragedy. In contrast to the Azerbaijanis, the Russians were unwilling to make public statements, let alone admit a mistake, and refused to apologize. Although an apology was eventually issued (after insistence from the President of Azerbaijan), this unfortunate incident left lasting scars and undermined trust between the countries.

Azerbaijan’s trust in Russia was so shaken by this event that the Azerbaijanis could not just sit by and leave the situation as it was. They realized that Russia was much stronger than Azerbaijan in terms of its media power. In the tragedy of the Azerbaijani plane crash, Russia began spreading lies loudly, denying its involvement in the incident—a move not typical of an ally. Therefore, Azerbaijan decided to weaken Russia’s media influence and simultaneously strengthen its own, aiming to create parity between the two countries in this field, as well as in diplomacy and humanitarian representation.

As a practical step, Azerbaijan decided to match the number of journalists from the Russian news agency “Russia Today” operating within its borders to the number of journalists from the Azerbaijani news agency “Azertag” working in Russia, which currently stands at just one. Additionally, Azerbaijan decided to shut down the “Russian House” in Baku, also known as “Rossotrudnichestvo,” which has been another point of contention in the relations between the two countries. The “Russian House” was established in 1925 by the Soviet Union’s security services and supposedly aimed to promote Russian culture and language in various countries. In practice, the “Russian House” served as a cover for Russian intelligence activities and the creation of a local network of contacts for Russia in a covert manner.

Not only did Azerbaijan close the “Russian House” operating on its territory, but other countries, such as France, Denmark, Estonia, Croatia, Poland, and many others, have done the same. The Danish newspaper “Information” expressed the issue: “The ‘Russian House’ in Denmark, presented as a center of science and culture, has served as a cover for Russian intelligence for many years. Journalists who examined photo and video materials of events held here have identified some of the expelled spies.” Azerbaijan openly declared that the closure of the “Russian House” was intended to protect its national interests.

Alongside the diplomatic crisis unfolding between the two countries, and perhaps as a result of it, there have been claims of discrimination and threats against Azerbaijani citizens living in Russia. After Russia began tightening its immigration laws, especially the Azerbaijani residents of Russia felt the intensification of the regime’s attitude toward immigrants. The pressure on the Azerbaijanis only grew, especially after various Russian entities, including Russian Telegram channels, painted a false image suggesting that only Azerbaijani migrants live in Russia.

 Even Azerbaijanis with Russian citizenship became targets. “Surprisingly,” the whole process of “Azerbaijani hatred” in Russia began after the closure of the “Russian House” in Baku. Responses in Russia included economic threats and anti-Azerbaijani statements from politicians and public figures. Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the remarks made by Nikolai Valuev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian State Duma’s Tourism Committee, which included hate speech and threats toward Azerbaijan, and in addition, Valuev’s entry into Azerbaijan was banned.

There were also threats from Russian figures, such as Telegram channels controlled by the government, to revive separatist ethnic organizations in Azerbaijan, such as the “Sadval” organization, which had previously promoted separatist ideas among minority groups. Azerbaijan is well aware of Russia’s attempts to create ethnic conflicts and use separatism as a weapon against other countries. In the past, Russia supported separatists in Karabakh and the creation of the fictional “Talysh-Mugan Republic”.

For Azerbaijan, Russia has been a partner in recent years, but since the tragedy of the Azerbaijani passenger plane, something has changed. Azerbaijan must be cautious, know who its friends are, and always stay vigilant. If Russia has begun threatening the use of separatist forces in Azerbaijan, who can guarantee that Russia will not cooperate with Iran against Azerbaijan? The relations between these two countries are important, but the lives of Azerbaijanis are more important.

The unlayering of systemic Government institutions has been the trend since the beginning of 2025, and it does not look like it will be prevented anytime soon. While the focus is coming from the new United States Administration, its actions threatening tariffs in response to security issues has opened up other national Governments to scrutiny from the US and from their own local communities. Actions taken by the previous administration has also come under fire as the mass audit of US Government rapidly takes hold.

Local investigations into funding and activities coming from within the US itself has shown some actions that were expected, some that seem absurd, and others that likely cross the line into criminality. While the auditors have been met with push back, it is not uncommon for auditors to be outsiders that possess a specific skill, as opposed to a direct agent of the Government it is auditing. The value of discovery in the process has already uncovered funding to some serious violations of the rights of American citizens, and support that would be considered as adding American liability towards conflict against allied nations. The internal reform looks to be as assertive as the Brazilian Judiciary’s push against all members of its Government and Opposition via the Lava Jato Scandal, one that was temporarily successful until the old Government was elected back into power in Brazil.

Pushing tariff’s on US trade allies seems to also follow issues surrounding safety, as opposed to being an issue involving trade policy directly. The pressure placed on US allies resulted in some agreements to increase border security and actions preventing US adversaries from taking root in Western security interests in the US sphere of influence. The admission of issues that hurt both local citizens and American citizens often did not come to light in many cases, only peeling back the layers once the US tied its trade threats to security issues, ones that in reality are to the benefit of citizens in both countries. Systemic corruption simply erodes local Governments and communities, and the United States looks to be refusing the further degradation of its allies on its borders and in the region.

Actions to address hidden abuses in other allied countries may also become a focus of US policy interests in the near future. While some Governments seem to be trending in a similar direction, notable abuses within allied countries have to come to light if the US can trust their closest relationships. The motivation for US officials would come from a moral imperative, actions that would act in the benefit of those citizens affected by the abuse in allied countries. Classic Western justice and values need to re-possess the legal and moral systemic processes of these nations, and if foreign principles can assist their justice systems, it should be welcomed by the majority of citizens in allied countries. Considering corruption is almost impossible to remove once it takes hold, any small opportunity to reduce it or remove it requires direct and immediate action.