Foreign Policy Blogs

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.

The New-ish Mexican President showing she knows the Art of Negotiation.

The United States’ upcoming tariff regime was planned to take effect on Tuesday Feb 4th 2025 against traditional NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico, with varying narratives on both sides, many drawbacks, and some breakthroughs. Whether or not either economy would weather a rapid 25% hit remains to be seen, but when taking past measures, it is possible.

Canada’s first major trade agreement came in the 1960s during the auto sector boom in the industrialised border States along the Canada-US border. The Auto Pact linked Canadian manufacturers to the largest auto industry in the world, tying US auto production to Canada as a benefit to Canada’s economy. This agreement ensured a prosperous and peaceful border region between the two countries. While the United States could have kept many of those jobs in the United States, extending economic opportunity across North America made both nations stronger and safer. Previous to the Auto Pact, Canada did have a robust economy that was subject to tariffs, and when the US, Mexico, and Canada entered the NAFTA agreement in the 1990s, the Auto Pact agreements were included in the NAFTA Agreement. NAFTA sought to include many other sectors, sectors that were tariffed before 1994, but sectors that did operate in a profitable position when tariffed pre-NAFTA.

On Feb 3rd, a discussion between the US and Mexican Presidents enabled a one month pause in Mexico’s tariff threat. While doubted by many, the core of President Trump’s tariff regime is to put pressure on other policies, in this case encouraging the reduction of narcotics trafficking from the Southern and Northern borders into the United States. The solutions do not seem to concern trade issues as much as safety and security issue, issues that were suppose to make North America safer under agreements like NAFTA and the USMCA. In their statements, the United States and Mexican Presidents paused the tariffs in acknowledging the Fentanyl crisis, securing armed military on the border region to address it and cracking down on weapons exports. Both issues help promote safety in both countries, and further agreements should be sought between the US and Mexico, not for the political benefit of each leader, but to the benefit of citizens in both countries.

Canada seems to have taken a different track in dealing with the United States, one that looks more cynical than productive. Upon the rally of tariff threats, the very unpopular Governing party in Canada shut down their Parliament and engaged in a new leadership race only for their party, while keeping the same Prime Minister active and making very consequential decisions after he decided to quit. This is uncommon in the British style Parliamentary System as with no popular support, a Government is suppose to resign and have an election. With this absurd action, the Government has locked decision making powers and the ability to address the tariffs out of the hands of Canadians, and into the palms of an unpopular and unelected cabal of the unwanted.

The weakness of Canada over the last ten years and the immediate collapse of a normal Government in the midst of tariff talks has done more to focus positive attention on the Governing party than to actually avoid tariffs. Actions taken by Canada before the US inauguration came off as dismissive or outright dangerous. The narrative that Canada and known issues within the country could never be a threat to the US does nothing to help Team Canada, but does a lot to shadow real border and safety issues between the two countries that hurt both Americans and Canadians. Inside Canada, one would be hard pressed to find a news story discussing the made in Canada Fentanyl crisis, organised crime and foreign influence, despite it being a major issue tied in with many border communities. If you are unable to acknowledge the problem, you are ill equipped to address it, and the Team Canada approach will not be able to negotiate its way out of tariffs if they will only focus on trade and not safety.

Canadians will not be able to have the ability to push back on the US, or any other country, if they are unable to recognise and address the narcotic and terror threats in their own communities. Team Canada cannot exist simply due to a tariff threat, as fighting for your country when the roots have been rotted by international crime will just degrade Canadian communities. The value of strength should be the common lesson here between all USMCA partners, but it cannot be learned from a position of systemic weakness.

When we think of Nobel Peace Prize winners, we imagine individuals working towards a different reality: a better future. A person receiving the Nobel Peace Prize has dedicated years to promoting peace between nations or peoples. This is a person who has contributed to the signing of peace agreements or at least fought against societal norms to achieve peace in the future.

When asked to think of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, I immediately think of Yitzhak Rabin, the former Prime Minister of Israel. He was a person who worked towards peace between Israelis and Palestinians, despite sharp opposition from both sides and ultimately paid for it with his life. However, it turns out that not all Nobel Peace Prize winners are genuinely working to promote peace; sometimes they are just very good actors. A good example of that is Mikhail Gorbachev, a man whose hands are stained with blood, received the Nobel Peace Prize.

From the beginning of his career, Gorbachev was far from a supporter of Azerbaijan, to say the least, as he was heavily influenced by the Armenian mafia in the Soviet city of Stavropol (now part of Russia in the North Caucasus). Despite his deep hatred for anything related to Azerbaijan or Azerbaijanis, Gorbachev obsessively despised Heydar Aliyev, the Azerbaijani leader who was a member of the Soviet Politburo. Gorbachev made it his goal to remove Aliyev from the political scene, and he did everything in his power to push him out.

Aliyev didn’t give up easily and fought to maintain his position as the First Deputy Chairman of the Soviet Union, but Gorbachev was stubborn, patient, and unyielding. Even after Aliyev suffered a heart attack, Gorbachev held official government meetings in his hospital room. During this time, Aliyev was forced to submit his resignation letter. Heydar Aliyev’s son, Ilham Aliyev, the current President of Azerbaijan, recalls that after his father’s resignation, Armenian nationalists and their supporters within the Soviet government began to act against Azerbaijanis.

They started expelling Azerbaijanis from the Karabakh region and from the Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia, which eventually led to a long-standing conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. On the other hand, in January 1990, Gorbachev began taking action to suppress the National Liberation Movement in Azerbaijan by force. On January 19, 1990, the Azerbaijani television station was hit by an explosion that disconnected Azerbaijan from the outside world at 7:27 PM. That night, as the date changed to January 20, 1990, the Soviet army entered Baku and began taking control of the city.

 It wasn’t until 5:30 AM that the residents of Baku realized what was happening, thanks to radio broadcasts and leaflets dropped over the city by helicopters. The Soviet army opened fire on the people of Baku without mercy or discrimination. Innocent civilians were shot in the streets and from the balconies of their homes, residential buildings were shelled, and people were killed in their apartments as the buildings collapsed on top of them. The Soviet army acted as if they were occupying an enemy city, using armored vehicles and tanks to advance through the city while firing indiscriminately.

The massacre’s victims were many. On that fateful day, around 150 innocent civilians were killed, including women, the elderly, and children. The massacre ended only after the Soviet army had taken full control of the city. Afterward, the violence against civilians subsided. If you’re wondering about the explosion that disabled the Azerbaijani television station, the answer will not surprise you. Investigations by the Soviet “Shield” organization in July 1990 revealed that the explosion at the station was caused by a special Soviet military unit or the KGB. According to the “Shield” report, the Soviet army did not act in defense against an external threat, but rather to punish its own people in this massacre. This chaos was authorized by Gorbachev on behalf of the Soviet government.

To justify this violent and murderous action against their own people, the Soviet government in Moscow attempted to explain that this military action was necessary due to a significant threat of an Islamic state emerging in Azerbaijan and that the Soviet army had to act to suppress it. In response to this justification, Allahshukur Pashazadeh, the Chairman of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Caucasus, addressed Gorbachev directly.

In his words, Pashazadeh stated: “There can be no justification for the bloody massacre, the monstrous crime sanctioned by you as the head of state. The Azerbaijani people, with outrage and contempt, reject the provocative accusations made against them, which supposedly served as the reason for the deployment of troops, one of which was the so-called ‘Islamic factor,’ presented as a threat to the existence of the Soviet state. A country that has turned its army into a murderer of its own citizens is deserving of nothing but shame. The shots in Baku are shots at living human hearts. By sending punitive troops into Baku, where they acted as occupiers, you discredited Soviet power, confirming that concepts such as sovereignty and the dignity of nations are foreign to it. You have completely discredited yourself as a political figure, proving your incompetence as the head of state. You sanctioned the murder of the people”.

The great yet cruel irony of this story is that in the same year, 1990, Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, with the powerful Western nations completely ignoring what he had done to the Azerbaijani people on that cursed day. Today, efforts are being made in Azerbaijan to revoke Gorbachev’s Nobel Peace Prize. But even before Azerbaijan’s request to revoke his prize, someone had already sought to strip him of the “Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle,” the highest honor in the Russian Federation—Tatiana Poloskova.

Poloskova, who holds a Ph.D. in political science, requested in 2013 that this high honor be revoked due to Gorbachev’s murderous actions, but she was denied. Poloskova supported the Azerbaijani people’s fight to have Gorbachev’s Nobel Peace Prize rescinded, arguing that what Gorbachev ordered the Soviet army to do was not just another crime against humanity. In her view, the Norwegian Nobel Committee had long since become political, and it was time to raise a strong, clear, and firm voice.

Mikhail Gorbachev is undoubtedly responsible for other disasters beyond the Black January massacre, such as the Tbilisi massacre of 1989, and in general, the collapse of the Soviet Union is a direct result of his policies. We hope that the Azerbaijani people will succeed in revoking Gorbachev’s Nobel Peace Prize and that this case will set a precedent for the revocation of other Nobel Peace Prizes awarded to individuals who cynically received a prize for peace while, throughout their lives, working for oppression, like Mikhail Gorbachev.

It’s never pleasant for anyone to be caught in the middle between two friends who don’t get along and frequently argue with each other. It’s uncomfortable when you’re a child, it’s awkward when you’re an adult, and it becomes even more problematic when you’re a country that must protect its citizens from the threats of neighboring states. Recently, Azerbaijan found itself caught in the middle between two of its most important allies—Turkey and Israel.

Turkey is Azerbaijan’s long-standing and closest ally; both nations see themselves as part of the same people living in two countries. On the other hand, Israel is also a close partner of Azerbaijan, with extensive trade relations in fields such as oil, weapons, and even mobile telecommunications (Israeli companies were responsible for founding the first mobile networks in Azerbaijan). But how did Azerbaijan end up in a position where it has to mediate between its two closest allies? Has Azerbaijan gained anything positive from this situation?

Let’s begin with some background. About a month and a half ago, the event that shook the Middle East was the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, nearly 25 years after he succeeded his father as president and almost 15 years after the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War. The group that took control in Syria is the Sunni Islamist rebel organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, led by Abu Mohammed al-Julani, whose real name is Ahmed al-Sharaa. This group is a successor of Jabhat al-Nusra, which split from ISIS and was considered the official branch of Al-Qaeda in Syria.

According to the group, they have moderated their stance; they no longer participate in the actions of Al-Qaeda or ISIS and only want to rebuild Syria. Despite their political statements, the new regime in Syria still raises concerns among regional countries and among Syrians who do not support Islamism and jihadism—except for one country: Turkey. Under Erdogan’s leadership, Turkey has supported the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group and other opposition Islamist groups against Assad since the beginning of the civil war. Erdogan’s decision to help these groups came from a geopolitical conflict with Assad, so Turkey’s interest was in having Assad removed from power. Now that Erdogan’s allies have finally taken control, the West expects the new Syrian regime to be completely pro-Turkish.

One of the countries most concerned about the rising Turkish influence on the new Islamist-jihadist regime in Syria is Israel, who has strained relations with the Erdogan government. However, it greatly pains Azerbaijan whenever Israel and Turkey do not get along, as they are a brother nation of Turkey, despite their close friendship with Israel. They would rather see the rising Turkish influence in the region be utilized to create a strategic front against Iran rather than used to harm Israel.

What should Azerbaijan do to ease the tensions between its two major allies? After all, both of these countries, Turkey and Israel, have supported Azerbaijan in recent years in several areas, particularly in defense and weaponry during the Second Karabakh War. The cooperation between these two countries strengthens Azerbaijan both internationally and regionally and enhances its position in the eyes of its southern enemy—Iran. A conflict between Azerbaijan’s two closest allies, not to mention a military one, would harm Azerbaijan directly.

Given this, Azerbaijan seeks to utilize all the diplomatic means at its disposal to mediate between the two conflicting nations. Such a move is important not only for Azerbaijan’s future security but also to position the country from the Caucasus in a much stronger strategic and geopolitical position. From a country relying on its allies, it will transform into a country that advises, mediates, and resolves conflicts in the Middle East, with surrounding countries viewing its status as higher than before. Moreover, mediating between Turkey and Israel will not only strengthen Azerbaijan’s security but also that of Israel and Turkey, and will boost stability in the entire region. Azerbaijan cannot miss this opportunity, because if it succeeds in its mediation, it will gain much, but if it fails, it stands to lose a great deal. But the question remains, can Azerbaijan mend Turkish-Israeli relations?

With the beginning of 2025 bringing in a new American administration, the effects of the new policy regime is eliciting reactions towards the great weight of American pressure on different parts of the world. The new test on the seriousness of America First policies may be seen as a trap by some or as empty threats by others, but in either case will have a lasting effect nonetheless.

The tariff threats to Mexico and Canada show that Mexico is likely going to work with the US in sorting out common interests as migration flows from abroad are also a detriment to Mexico. The Nearshoring of many companies from China to Mexico will bring a tremendous amount of investment into Mexico. Mexico’s manufacturing base and Agro sector’s focus towards the US market has always been a benefit to Mexico. Even when considering America First policies, many manufactured goods will still be made outside of the US due to cost considerations and benefits to the US market. Security issues are best dealt with using over the border supports as linking trade and safety is essential. Challenging negative elements like gang activity or foreign involvement that harms the US by using Mexico’s close relationship with the United States will be a common focus on both sides of the border, continuously working within that framework. Despite Mexico’s Government having a left wing orientation, the focus on promoting Mexico’s economy will be a productive approach as it involves added funding for social development and poverty reduction strategies.

The issue of security at the northern border seems to be vacant in the Canadian narrative on the upcoming tariffs. Canadian leaders touring US media to improve their personal reputation does nothing but use the tariff threat and new American administration as an election tool for local power shifts in Canada. With the exception of local leaders within Canada itself, the Federal Government of Canada chose to implode itself right before its most essential negotiation in ten years by avoiding discussions of simply securing the border. There are little to no mention of the major issues on the northern border, issues that are tied to international security threats to both Canadians and the United States. The management of expectations are that tariffs are coming, no matter what the costs, with no ability to work with the US administration on these issues. The internal personal stakes of self focused political leaders will cost Canadians greatly, a historic lose-lose scenario that should have never occurred. Canada would do well to not heavily counter-tariff the US and put Canada into an economic depression, but this has already been threatened via the energy market.

The ability to end the conflict between Russia and Ukraine comes at a time where little movement has taken place since 2014, minus the shores of the Black Sea towards Crimea and Ukraine’s recent movement into Russia itself. Considering the costs to both sides, and the depletion of weapons from both NATO allies and an almost completely diminished Soviet stockpile, preserving stable countries in the region might benefit all sides with the rise of terror attacks within Russia and Europe itself. At this point, the losses on both sides for so little gain may allow for a renewed recognition that families often have relatives on both sides of the conflict. While peace may not be the key element, the need for stability in the region is better than mutual weaknesses that collapses both nations from pressures abroad. The shared history of a united front against aggressors from abroad may be able to be re-constituted if there are willing partners who can work together to challenge a common threat. In reality, the world in 2025 abound with such threats.

Addressing conflicts in the Middle East will determine much of the security issues over the next decade. Any sign of weakness in negotiations or in response to threats to US interests and those of their allies will be exploited in the most erratic of ways. These few short weeks of January has already been characterized by chaos resulting from threats from abroad mixed with weakness in basic policy approaches towards health and safety. New methods using drones and asymmetric conflict will be pervasive if there are safety gaps within Western societies and even within the Secret Service themselves, soft targets being a focus along with using new tactics to evade security screening. Weakness in policy will encourage more instability, with Russia’s southern region, China’s sphere of influence and streets in the West being key battlegrounds for tensions. Stability vs. Chaos will determine new ties between Governments, as dashes for power come when weaknesses are momentarily exposed. Normalising these failures should be something that needs to be avoided, and allies who work against this framework should be met with tariffs or other similar policy responses.

Los Angeles’ Historic 2025 Fire

The new year is one that will give change to how conflicts are conducted on the world stage. As discussed previously, the War in Ukraine over the last few years has created a deficit in military equipment. The old Soviet arsenal has been sourced to such a great degree that Cold War stocks are being dwindled down to storage parts. With a deficit in complex equipment, new threats will come from new methods. While the last of the regimes fall, threats will surely not cease.

The ability for a society to defend itself comes from the idea that the society first needs to be defended. Recognizing future threats comes with the narrative that a threat may occur, and that resources will need to be designed to counter the future threat. Recent history shows that ignoring or legitimizing regimes that are clearly challenging democratic norms will never lead to a peaceful resolution. Repeating these errors weakens allies of democracies, and produces a situation where a larger conflict is inevitable, if not already in progress. National leaders need to defend their communities first, as all other viable nations would operate in a similar manner.

A society cannot function if a Constitution is applied via the political will of a few powerful individuals in society. Justice applied acts as a release valve for tensions in a society, so violence does not become the only last option. When there are those in power in a society that do not have the best interests of their community in mind, or are outwardly reticent to acting in good faith for the betterment of others, those communities rapidly deteriorate. When justice is reserved for others and laws are created to discourage good will among neighbours, the end result is an intentional corruption of stability and equality. A simple equation comes when you try and apply basic rights of safety, order, and proper Government to some groups above others, or even diminish those rights for one group beneath others, you have lost your democracy. The enormous push by some in society to deny those basic rights to punish those they dislike copies the worst regimes from a Milan Kundera novel, and is in no way a fair and just society.

A lost society is one that functions on the worst kept secrets of their community. The end result of the asymmetric eruption has been at the surface of some of the most horrendous acts of humanity, married to some of the most oppressive laws against freedom and liberty. Adjusting a society to one that reduces liberty for the sake for safety can often be avoided if the laws of the community are applied as they were designed to be used, and those in power have the honour and will to work for the betterment of their fellow community members. The degradation of a community does not simply come from an assault from abroad, but via decisions from within that betray the core values of a society in the most expressive of actions and the most meaningful of ways. Someone in their right just mind are always aware when their freedoms are neglected. It is often those who wish to degrade society who are the most vocal and aggressive to those who speak their mind openly when voicing their calls for justice. None of this is by accident or is a symptom of negligence, but is the end result of modern challenges to society, challenges that were known to those who created many democratic legacies.

In an effort to throw away the carrots and invest in new sticks, the new American administration has decided to use the economic and political weight of the United States to address non-trade policies with many of its traditional economic allies. One of the most notable instances of this strategy was used to encourage NATO members to increase funding for security, pulling funding obligations away from the United States for security issues abroad. While this tactic was not taken seriously at the time, the coming war between Ukraine and Russia proved it to be a useful shift. With all of Ukraine’s allies now contributing in the billions of dollars, compounded with the United States’ own significant contributions, Ukraine has been able to put up a historic level of resistance against Russian aggression.

More recently, President Trump has focused his energies on local issues within the United States connected to a poor border strategy. While trade has always been the focus of relations between NAFTA neighbours, the United States will use tariffs to enforce actions against drug trafficking and terror issues that are lacking on both sides of the Southern and Northern borders. With security issues being the main concern, it is likely the case that increased actions against Fentanyl and terror threats would benefit both the US, Mexico and Canada. The question then remains, whether the trade partners are aware of such benefits, and whether or not they will use local impressions of the US to bolster their own political fortunes?

Mexico, who had their own election fairly recently, had put back the same party in power with a new leader for the next six years. Despite the current party being of a left wing orientation, Mexico’s approach in re-signing the USMCA Agreement focused deeply on Mexican commercial interests. Mexico’s Government in the following years seemed to respond to US policy by mirroring the Biden Administration’s actions on the border. With very apparent border issues with US policy over the last four years, Mexico sought to limit the negative effects within Mexico itself during that period of time. The effect of record breaking migrations passing through Mexico put a great burden on Mexico’s social security system, encouraging Mexico to either prevent migrants on their own southern border, or allow them to reach the US border so they do not remain in Mexico. With the US border being the target of most migrants, Mexico chose the latter strategy in response to the lack of US border enforcement.

The eruption caused by abuses of the Maduro Government in Venezuela resulted in one of the largest refugee populations in modern times crossing through Latin America, Mexico, and the United States. While many Venezuelans have proper refugee claims due to their treatment under the Maduro regime, the chaos created by mass migrations out of Venezuela was used to transmit organised crime through the same routes used by many of these refugee claimants. These issues affected Mexico and many Latin American communities in the region, and were apparent in those communities in the United States months before it became the focus of the last US election. Spanish language news within the US would constantly put out reports of violence from those specific gangs that seemed to be frequent, coordinated, and ignored by most English language media, until it was no longer possible to ignore. Mexico clearly benefits in the US addressing their border issues and coordinated crime coming over the border as it has a negative effect on Mexico as well. Mexico is a net beneficiary to stable relations with the US, especially if it reduces its political ties with China in the process.

The Fentanyl Crisis has reached the point of inducing the tariff strategy on former NAFTA partners. US media has been detailing base ingredients being sent from China to Mexico for final production and export via cartel networks. Mexico and the US should immediately take a coordinated response to the imports from China and cartel control over the border. With many international companies Nearshoring their China based manufacturing to Mexico, the US-Mexico border can likely evolve into the manufacturing hub of the globe that was envisioned in 1994’s initial NAFTA agreement. Ever since China joined the WTO, Mexico had directly suffered from the loss of manufacturing to China, in 2025, this is no longer the case. With Mexico displacing part of China’s manufacturing base, Mexico may be entering its most successful period ever, if it can shrug off negative ties to China. Since the tariff is a security issue for President Trump, Mexico may find it easier to implement its own security with a strong US border in a win-win scenario.

Canada has often been able to avoid criticism, but has had many issues over the last few years that have raised the ire of the incoming US Administration. Fentanyl and drug issues on the Canadian border have risen dramatically, but the shocking statistics showing security issues related to terror threats as well and China’s influence over the current Canadian Government is shocking to both Americans and Canadians alike.

The response to the tariff threat has been absurd on the Canadian side, firstly concentrating it solely on trade when it was openly stated as a security issue, and now evolving into a near complete collapse of the Canadian Government in power. When communications from regional Provincial leaders toward the incoming US Administration displaced the Canadian Government’s own coordinated responses, the Premier of Quebec and the other Provinces collected themselves together to become Team Canada, without a proper Canadian Government spokesperson to respond to the security issues. With Justin Trudeau, it looks like he is planning to openly fight Trump to the detriment of all Canadians big and small, despite his Government creating one of the largest national deficit’s ever seen in Canada. Canada is considered quite dangerous for some cultural groups as well, more dangerous than it has been in generations, with security issues in Canada now famously being seen globally on a weekly basis. With a passive response by the Trudeau Government on the murder of Canadians on Flight 752 by Iran’s regime, Trudeau is now taking his less than 20% approval rating and choosing the opposite response against the Americans. Trudeau’s 2025 election strategy looks to use a Twitter fight with President Trump to garner local support. The first move however was against the US voter, ensuring his Government will incur tariffs in response. The error of being a foreign leader who makes public statements against all of those Americans who voted for their President is inappropriate on the best of days.

While Mexicans, Americans and Canadians benefit from increased border security, a lesson on consequences for voters is working rapidly in real time. The North American region can become the most economically successful region over the next few generations, if leaders in those countries can work towards benefitting their own communities and supporting each other’s economic growth over their own personal benefits. Without this basic level of awareness, tariffs will likely become a reality in 2025 for many in North America and abroad.