Latest news with #AndrewNapolitano
Watani
5 days ago
- Business
- Watani
BRICS: A threat and a promise
It has become a well-established fact in global politics that the US through its belligerence, arrogance, and recklessness in managing global affairs; its double standards, violation of international law and assault on global institutions, is creating a new reality for which it can only blame itself. This new reality marks the decline of US global dominance which started with the end of WWII. Today, we witness the birth of a new bipolar world order that seeks to restore the balance and justice absent from the international scene. This is not a call to replace one unipolar world power with another, because the lesson is clear: the hegemony of one superpower over the world leads to arrogance, belligerence, and abuse of power. Rather, hopes are pinned on the emergence of a multipolar system where global leadership is shared and the right of countries to achieve peace, reject violence, and foster cooperation among peoples is firmly respected. A promising model in the birth of such a multipolar order is the BRICS alliance which has positioned itself as a potential force in global leadership. Established in 2009, BRICS was founded on the premise that international institutions were overly dominated by western powers and had ceased to serve developing countries. The bloc has sought to coordinate its members' economic and diplomatic policies, found new financial institutions, and reduce dependence on the US dollar. The acronym refers to the founding members Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa which became a member in 2011; in 2024 BRICS expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Indonesia. Also in 2024, new 'partner countries' were added: Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan, these countries do not have full member status, but are allowed to participate in BRICS summits. Once the Russia Ukraine War broke out in February 2022, the US and its European allies imposed harsh economic sanctions on Russia, which they hoped would break Russia and defeat it. Russia, however, was able to break away from the long-standing structures of the global economic order and established for itself alternative pathways. BRICS was among the means that not only helped Russia withstand the ramifications of the sanctions, but also helped form a new global coalition that challenged the global order imposed on the world since the end of WWII. In this context, I will here print excerpts from an 11 July talk by Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar who was interviewed by Judge Andrew Napolitano on his podcast Judging Freedom. Mr Escobar, 71, covered the BRICS summit that took place earlier this month in Sao Paolo. During the summit he met with heads and representatives of the participating delegations, and he covered the summit's developments and activities. Judge Napolitano: Tell us about the [BRICS summit's] final declaration. I understand that it addressed finance, security and culture. Mr Escobar: 'At the end of the BRICS business council, we spent a whole day with business people from all over the global south discussing projects. At the end of another meeting of the NDB, the BRICS Development Bank, Russian Finance Minister Anton Silvanov announced that from now on the NDB, the BRICS bank headquarter in Shanghai, may be working towards becoming the main platform to finance development projects and mega projects across the BRICS sphere bypassing SWIFT; the subtext of what he said is this is de-dollarisation in action… It starts with the NDB, the BRICS bank. It will expand to direct trade between BRICS members. In the case of Russia and China, they are already transacting 90 per cent of their trade in their own currencies in one boost and expanding to the other ones.' The second subject matter was culture. What was addressed with respect to culture in the unanimous BRICS declaration? 'Before the summit we had a very strong debate on media alternatives to big tech controlling narratives all over the world, and of course the soft power control of culture and media by the West. So one of the proposals was: let's have a BRICS-wide media network including factchecking by BRICS members public and private to counteract this imposition of one truth only by the West. There was a letter that came out for a BRICS partner member President of Cuba Diaz Canel. I think it was extremely relevant and had enormous significance; that's the representative of a government that has been stigmatised and harassed by the United States government for decades now… They made a deal in a Rio Sputnik in Russia, Guenshine China and Brazil 247, a portal in Brazil, to increase their cooperation. So, soon we're going to have all these new media alliances and corporations BRICS-wide, and the BRICS nations won't be submitted to dictates coming from big tech and from American mainstream media or western mainstream media.' What did the declaration say about mutual or collective security? 'BRICS is not a military alliance… This was part of the very important first discussion in the opening day where we had a President Lula opening and President Putin went online. It's an absolutely key issue because BRICS has been accused of being anti-western. The Chinese academics have a wonderful definition: BRICS is the post West environment… This means the system of international relations, geoeconomic and geopolitical, established after the end of the second world war is dead from BRICS point of view, and they are working to establish a new one. The West may join or not, because this high-speed train has already left the station.' Do these BRICS nations fear Trump's tariffs? 'Yes, which brings us to why Brazil is on fire now… Just to give you an example, Brazil is the largest exporter of orange juice on the planet; 95 per cent of their production goes abroad, half of it goes to the United States… So they have to find tomorrow if the sanctions start to be applied on August 1st, new markets in Africa, in Southeast Asia, Central Asia, etc. But this is a complicated process.' What a role at BRICS was played by our mutual friend, the greatest diplomat on the planet, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov? 'Lavrov is one of the masterminds in a good sense of BRICS, and the role of BRICS today at overtaking every red line imposed by the [western] empire. BRICS is now at the centre of the whole discussion about reforming the system of international relations.' Watani International 25 July 2025 Comments comments
Watani
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Watani
US strikes on Iran: Point of no return?
The early hours of 22 June carried news and photographs of an arrogant, jubilant President Trump announcing that the U.S. had offered Israel the logistic and military support that enabled it to strike three nuclear reactor sites in Iran. Mr Trump praised the strike and lauded its masterful execution by Israel, sarcastically saying that that would not be a standalone operation, but would be followed by others if needs be. Other operations, he said, would naturally be easier given that Iran's claws have been clipped by the first strike and its nuclear capabilities curtailed. The American-led strike took many by surprise since Mr Trump had, just on the eve of the strike, talked of giving Israel and Iran 15-days to negotiate in Muscat, Oman, an agreement on Iran's nuclear programme. Yet I say it was no surprise, given that lies have recently gained ground as a modern means of strategic deception in conflict management, and promises of peace are made while preparing for stabs in the back. I see no excuse for the Iranians to have swallowed the US bait a second time, following the initial strike by Israel on 12 June. Now, with the second strike on Iran that targeted three nuclear sites, have we reached the point of no return? Does Iran have any power to avenge itself against Israel? And will any other country rush to support Iran just as the US supported Israel? As I write this, I see the coming days bringing on severe hazards that do not point at any peace between Iran and Israel. There are fears that Iran might, in desperation, execute some irrational retaliatory action; it brings to mind the saying: the hero is the one who's lost everything.. who has nothing left to lose. Today, I bring to my readers excerpts from a rich dialogue that, even if it took place prior to the US strike on Iran, introduced arguments that are still valid. The dialogue, which was broadcast on 20 June on Judge Andrew Napolitano's podcast 'Judging Freedom' under the title 'What if the US does attack Iran', took place with John Mearsheimer, 77, American political scientist and international relations scholar, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at University of Chicago. Judge Napolitano started by asking: Is Israel prevailing in its war against Iran, as the mainstream in the West claims? In reply, Prof Mearsheimer said: 'No, Israel is in serious trouble… President Trump said Israel is winning… but the question is: what does winning mean?' To win, the Professor said, is to have a goal and the strategy to achieve it. Israel, he explained, has three stated goals: to eliminate the nuclear capability of Iran, to bring about a regime change and, as articulated by President Trump himself, unconditional surrender by Iran. The first goal cannot be achieved by Israel without US support, and even then Irans's nuclear programme, the uranium enrichment cannot be eliminated. As to the second goal, he said, regime change can never be achieved without invading Iran, something no one in his right mind would do. The third goal of unconditional surrender is laughable, because Iranians will fight till the last person before that happens. So Israelis have no way of achieving the goals they set out to do. Do any serious players actually believe that Iran has nuclear weapons? 'There's no evidence now that Iran has nuclear weapons… but there's no question that Iran has significant nuclear enrichment capabilities that takes them close to having a bomb… but they're a good distance from that now. But you can't tell that to Trump and Netanyahu.' Do you foresee a circumstance under which the Russians or the Chinese will get involved militarily? 'If you're talking about them getting directly involved in the fight, absolutely not. If you're talking about diplomatic, economic, or military support, the answer is certainly yes.' He explained that there is a vested interest for Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to stick together against the US, Israel and Ukraine. So they will support one another but not get into the fight. Shouldn't there be in America a great debate about the nature and extent of our involvement in a war that could be disastrous? Why should a person who changes his mind every 10 minutes meet with five people who tell him what he wants to hear make this decision rather than great debates in the House and the Senate on America's role in the world? 'Oh it's very simple. You can't have a great debate on any issue involving Israel. It's just impermissible; the lobby won't allow it. And the reason is that if you have a debate it won't come out in Israel's favour, and this cannot be allowed.' The Professor joined Judge Napolitano in decrying the state of freedom and democracy in the US, and the manner in which decisions are taken. It all ran against the elevated principles that once prevailed in the West, they said, but which are now never upheld, even as the Israeli lobby wields authority over politicians and mainstream media, and as wars, destruction, and genocide are unashamedly promoted under false pretexts. This, they agreed is how the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, are explained off. Watani International 27 June 2025 Comments comments
