US President's confidence appears unfounded after militants sink two vessels on critical Red Sea shipping route
The United States President said the militants had agreed to a ceasefire after a campaign of airstrikes which he said had bombed the Iranian-backed group into
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
37 minutes ago
- Scoop
Three Different Prime Ministers In One Week
BANGKOK, Thailand – Thailand's struggle with democracy resulted in three very different prime ministers in three days with Phumtham Wechayachai becoming the newest caretaker leader last week, after a court suspended former Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra for alleged "ethical misconduct." So, who is Acting Prime Minister Phumtham ("POOM-tom")? Mr. Phumtham, 72, is a veteran politician who was a commerce minister and caretaker prime minister in 2024 and Ms. Paetongtarn's defense minister during 2025. Some generals in the U.S.-trained military were wary of Mr. Phumtham when Ms. Paetongtarn appointed the civilian as defense minister, because in 1976 he joined an anti-military leftist student movement and was nicknamed "Big Comrade" for voicing speeches against the return of military dictator Thanom Kittikachorn. When the military violently crushed the university students' protests -- officially killing 46 students amid estimates of more than 100 dead -- Mr. Phumtham fled into the countryside with hundreds of others who were welcomed by Thailand's hardened China-backed communist guerrillas. Students who survived those battles eventually surrendered and received amnesty. Some joined mainstream politics after changing their political views. "I went to escape the violence," Mr. Phumtham said last year, denying the military's suspicions that he believed in communism. "It was not only me, there were other students too." The dizzying changes at the top of this Southeast Asian, Buddhist-majority, U.S. ally are an attempt by Ms. Paetongtarn to keep herself and her Shinawatra family's dynastic Pheu Thai (For Thais) Party in her fragile ruling coalition, after the powerful Constitutional Court suspended her from the prime ministry on July 1. In a cabinet shuffle hours before her suspension, Ms. Paetongtarn appointed herself as culture minister to remain in the government while the court deliberates her fate, which could come quickly or take weeks. Ms. Paetongtarn, 38, faces a possible ban from politics for 10 years, or worse punishment, for criticizing a Royal Thai Army commander during her leaked phone call to Cambodia's de facto leader Hun Sen on June 15. As a result of Ms. Paetongtarn's cabinet shakeup, the U.S.-trained military was given only a new Acting Defense Minister Gen. Nattphon Narkphanit after Mr. Phumtham resigned as defense minister to become acting prime minister. "Leaving such an important position vacant is unprecedented in Thai politics," the editorial said, and was especially worrying because Thailand and Cambodia are involved in a deadly border dispute. Thai troops shot dead a Cambodian soldier during a brief clash on May 28 in the jungle and scrubland of the Emerald Triangle where eastern Thailand, northern Cambodia, and southern Laos meet. During June, the feud morphed into current economic boycotts of some imports and exports by both sides and border closures. "Why, in a situation where we are still entangled with Cambodia, do we not have a defense minister?" said popular opposition People's Party parliamentarian Rangsiman Rome. "I think this kind of signal is not good for the Thai people, and we all know that the defense minister is important, not just for signing arms procurement deals, but also for strategy and working with the National Security Council, which today plays an important role in resolving various problems that arise, including the Cambodia [border] issue," Mr. Rangsiman told Khaosod English news. "Evidently, the new cabinet is not based on meritocracy," the conservative Bangkok Post said in an editorial on July 3 describing it as "a lame-duck government." "The change is to ensure the [Pheu Thai] party's short-term, if not immediate, survival by sharing the political cake among those in its circle -- giving or returning favors so they do not jump ship and will still be around at the next election," the editorial said. Acting Prime Minister Phumtham is a trusted aide of Ms. Paetongtarn's politically powerful father, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a billionaire perceived as the de facto leader of Thailand who influences his politically naive daughter's decisions and policies. When a military coup toppled twice-elected Mr. Thaksin's 2001-2006 government, Mr. Phumtham and many of Mr. Thaksin's other party members were banned from politics for five years. Mr. Phumtham's rise to become acting prime minister involved a dazzling political zig-zag. On July 3, Mr. Phumtham replaced a previous Caretaker Prime Minister Suriya Juangroongruangkit, who Ms. Paetongtarn suddenly appointed on July 2 hours before the Constitutional Court suspended her. As a result, former Transport Minister Mr. Suriya became acting prime minister for only one day, July 2, before Mr. Phumtham took over that caretaker role on July 3. Ms. Paetongtarn, as the new culture minister, went July 3 with her multi-party cabinet to Dusit Palace where they swore an oath of allegiance to King Vajiralongkorn as required when an administration shuffles its cabinet. Outgoing Acting Prime Minister Suriya also took the oath as acting prime minister, alongside Mr. Phumtham who was sworn in as Thailand's new interior minister and reconfirmed as a deputy prime minister. Hours later on July 3 Mr. Suriya resigned, as planned, to allow Mr. Phumtham to be appointed as the new caretaker prime minister. Mr. Phumtham had previously been lower in the order of succession than Mr. Suriya, so Mr. Phumtham was unable to become acting prime minister until the cabinet reshuffle and allegiance oath on July 3. As a newly sworn-in interior minister and deputy prime minister, Mr. Phumtham was then qualified to be promoted to be acting prime minister. The confusing, hurried changes reflect Ms. Paetongtarn's rapidly weakening position and her seemingly desperate attempts to exploit legal loopholes in parliament, where her party has a razor-thin majority. The National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Election Commission, and the Central Investigation Bureau are separately due to also hear allegations that her conversation with Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen may have violated the constitution or threatened Thailand's security. Parliamentarians were scheduled for a no-confidence vote against Ms. Paetongtarn's coalition on July 3 but the five opposition parties agreed to postpone it until the Constitutional Court reviews her case which could take several weeks. Ms. Paetongtarn said, "I insist I had no ill intentions," when she criticized the army's second commander. The prime minister was given 15 days to defend herself in court. The Constitution Court's nine judges voted unanimously to consider a petition by 36 appointed, pro-military senators accusing Ms. Paetongtarn of "lacking integrity" and "ethical misconduct" while speaking to Mr. Hun Sen during their ongoing border feud, and voted 7-2 to immediately suspend her from the prime ministry. Audio from her phone call on June 15 to Cambodia's Senate President Hun Sen was leaked, exposing her criticism of Thailand's Second Army Region Commander Lt. Gen. Boonsin Padklang. Lt. Gen. Boonsin's troops guard northeastern Thailand's border with Cambodia, including the disputed Emerald Triangle zone where the shooting occurred. In an audio clip of her leaked call -- which she later confirmed -- Ms. Paetongtarn told Mr. Hun Sen that she did not want him "to listen to the opposing side, especially since the [Thai] Second Army Region commander is entirely from the opposition. 'He [the Thai commander] just wants to appear cool or impressive. He may say [hawkish] things that are not beneficial to the country,' Ms. Paetongtarn said to Mr. Hun Sen during her call. The Bangkok Post described her comments about the commander as "derogatory remarks" and criticized her "submissive tone towards Hun Sen, with her signaling a readiness to comply with the Cambodian strongman's demands." Richard S. Ehrlich is a Bangkok-based American foreign correspondent reporting from Asia since 1978, and winner of Columbia University's Foreign Correspondents' Award. Excerpts from his two new nonfiction books, "Rituals. Killers. Wars. & Sex. -- Tibet, India, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka & New York" and "Apocalyptic Tribes, Smugglers & Freaks" are available at
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
Defence Spending Is Like Insurance – How Will NZ Pay The Higher Premiums?
Defence spending is like insurance – you have to pay for it but you hope you never have to use it. And the higher the risk you face, the higher your premium will be. New Zealand has now committed to paying those higher defence insurance premiums. The government's 2025 Defence Capability Plan, released in April, includes NZ$9 billion in extra funding over the next four years. That's a sizable increase on a current annual budget of just under $5 billion. New Zealand is not alone, of course. Driven by geopolitical tensions and US President Donald Trump's demand that other countries spend a higher proportion of their GDP on defence, global military spending rose for the tenth year in a row to US$2,718 billion in 2024, with huge increases in Europe and the Middle East. How much 'insurance' a country should buy in the form of defence spending will vary. Too little, and it cannot respond when it needs to; too much, and resources are needlessly wasted. For New Zealand, it is a matter of finding the right balance. Economically, however, defence spending is more complicated than simply buying weapons and recruiting more personnel. There can be benefits beyond basic security considerations. One involves what economists call 'technology spillovers'. Past innovations developed for military use – such as jet engines, GPS and the internet – often found important civilian applications. The challenge is to design defence investments to deliberately build skills and technologies with wider economic benefit: advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity or clean tech. New Zealand's defence plan includes this kind of spending, including between $100 million and 300 million on cybersecurity. On the other hand, promises of new jobs from large projects are often overstated, with New Zealand's best known example being the ' Think Big ' policy of the 1970s. Rather, there can be job substitution as people move from civilian roles into military ones. Guns and butter In the end, of course, increased defence spending must be funded – through higher taxes, more debt or reduced spending on other items. Higher GDP growth would make the expenditure more affordable, but even then we face the same tradeoffs. It's not possible to have lower taxes and debt as well as higher government spending. Most of the expenditure set out in the defence plan will be on equipment. But any increase in the output of the defence industry will likely crowd out other consumer and investment goods. While clearly an extreme example, one only has to look at how defence spending rose during WWII. The increase in military output came at the expense of other goods, leading to shortages and rationing. New Zealand doesn't face that scale of change, but there is still likely to be some shift in production from 'butter to guns'. We might also see a shift in how businesses spend their research and development money, towards military and away from civilian applications. New Zealand does not have a large defence industry and will need to import much of the new equipment. This implies a need for higher exports to pay for those imports, meaning fewer goods for New Zealanders to consume. Costs and benefits Most countries are understandably reluctant to cut spending on health, education and other things voters care about in order to boost defence. Hence, governments can be tempted to label new expenditures as 'defence' when it could otherwise be classified as 'updated infrastructure'. Spending on dual-purpose capital works is likely to increase, therefore, with projects earmarked for defence more likely to be funded. The New Zealand defence plan already allows for housing, airfield and port facilities that can all have multiple uses. There are also ethical considerations. Many consumers prefer not to invest in the arms trade, but components used in weapons manufacture often have non-military uses as well. Similarly, many consumer items, such as phones, vehicles and food, can be purchased by the military but clearly have non-military uses. We may see more of the output of companies that also produce non-military items directed into defence. All of this can make it difficult to classify a company as a defence contractor, and may be challenging for large investors (such as superannuation funds) with ethical investment policies. At the same time, the cost of not investing in defence firms might also rise as demand for their products or services increases and they become better investments. Like people in general, countries prefer lower insurance premiums. But when risks increase, so too does the price of insurance. Voters will disagree on how much should be spent on defence, but that is largely a political question. What economics teaches us, however, is that if you want to reduce your insurance premium, then reduce your risk. And that is something easier said than done.
Scoop
21 hours ago
- Scoop
K-Defense Day: Pimping For The Arms Dealers
Militarism is catching on across the countries of advanced economies and beyond. The sly, disingenuous term of 'defence' is used in this context, encouraging arms manufacturers, contractors and the entire apparatus of the military-industrial complex to fatten for the cause. The European Union huffs and struts towards higher targets of expenditure that will cull projects for peaceful development in favour of a fatuous rearmament agenda. Member countries of the NATO alliance, lent on by the administration of President Donald Trump, are doing the same. The countries of the Middle East continue to add to the numbers, with warring Israel seeing a 65% increase in 2024 to US$46.5 billion, the sharpest annual increase since the Six-Day War in 1967. In East Asia, military contractors are also preening themselves in Tokyo and Seoul, pressing the flesh and pursuing contracts. Japan's military spending rose by a gulping 21% in 2024. The amount of US$55.3 billion is the largest since 1952. In Seoul, on the occasion of K-Defense Day on June 8, President Lee Jae-myung made it clear that he did not want South Korea's own defence industry to miss out on all the fun. In a closed-door discussion held at the Grand Hyatt Seoul hotel organised by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Lee solemnly promised to 'do my best to push ahead, as long as we don't end up being labelled arms dealers'. This somewhat idiosyncratic caveat is bound to make little difference, given Lee's ambitions to promote the value of South Korea's killing inventory. DAPA, wanting to make the most of its first Defense Industry Day themed 'Remembering the dedication and passion of Korea's Defense Industry', was in a bullish mood to promote Korean military prowess. Some well minted propaganda did the rounds, drawing inspiration on the exploits of Admiral Yi Sun-sin on July 8, 1592, when the turtle ship was committed to the Battle of Sacheon against the Japanese fleet. The turtle ship, in its 'historical significance', symbolised 'Korea's will to protect its territory and its independent technological prowess.' Those in the defence industry had been worried that the new President might give them the cold shoulder on this grand occasion. He had previously attacked the installation of the US Terminal High Altitude Defense system on Korean soil, ostensibly to protect South Korea from North Korean missiles, as needlessly provocative. The militarists need not have worried. All the relevant mandarins were in attendance, including the Minister of National Defense nominee Ahn Gyu-baek and Chairperson of the National Defense Committee, Seong Il-jong. The industry titans were also represented. Numerous awards of merit were also presented. Lee had purportedly told his aides that K-Defense Day, put on the calendar of commemorations by his impeached predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol in 2023, would be a good opportunity to 'highlight our support for defence.' According to Korea JoongAng Daily, Lee outlined his various achievements of late to the closed gathering, including attending the G7 summit held last month in Canada. 'A big reason I went was to showcase the strength of our defence industry and to ask them to buy our submarines.' In May, it was revealed that a trio of South Korean firms – Hyundai Heavy Industries, Hanwha Ocean and Hanwha Aerospace – had made a combined offer to the Canadian armed forces valued between US$14 to 17 billion in submarines, with US$720 million worth of armoured vehicles and artillery systems. It was a good time for the Koreans to strike, given the stated view by newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Mike Carney that 'the old relationship with the United States based on… tight security and military cooperation is over'. Lee also explained his purpose for seeking an invitation to the latest NATO summit held in The Hague. Despite wanting to avoid accusations of being a grubby arms dealer, the ROK President was clearly placing the ambitions and wallets of arms dealers ahead of the common citizenry. He had become a pimp for arms: 'The biggest reason I wanted to go was to advertise our defence industry and weapons.' Participants at the forum pressed Lee to depart from the view that defence was a matter of procurement and competition between parties rather than a total industry beneficial to the state. The response was suitably patriotic – at least if you are a merchant of death: 'Defence and arms exports are not just a competition between companies; they're a competition between nations. We have to win as 'One Team Korea.'' In public remarks made at the start of the forum, Lee offered the sort of reasoning that launders the military-industrial complex of its stains, concealing its insatiable appetite to stimulate the cause for war. 'I hope the defence industry not only strengthens our security but also becomes one of Korea's future growth engines. The government will continue investing and providing strong support.' In response to 'the rapidly changing security environment', the government would also 'develop state-of-the-art weapon systems using artificial intelligence (AI) and unmanned robots and build a healthy business ecosystem that goes beyond the industrial structure centred on big corporations to allow small and medium enterprises and diverse talent to participate.' Militarism, following this seedy rationale, should not just be for the big corporations and arms manufacturers. In the business of killing, the little guys should also be given a chance.
