Latest news with #Foucauldian
IOL News
18-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Trump's tariffs make us look like a monkey with a grenade
US President Donald Trump announced that he was immediately undertaking a programme to supply weapons to Nato for use in Ukraine. Image: AP US President Donald Trump's yo-yoing foreign policy continues to cause unprecedented ructions in international relations, with his sudden adoption of a hard stance against Russia the latest example of the dreaded unpredictability in diplomacy. One expert has likened President Trump's cantankerous approach to foreign relations to a 'monkey playing with a hand grenade'. In a typical flip-flop move this week, the US leader gave Russia 50 days to make a deal on ending the war with Ukraine or face 100% tariffs. In addition, Trump announced that he was immediately undertaking a programme to supply weapons to Nato for use in Ukraine at a cost of up to a trillion dollars. 'America will manufacture and supply, and Nato will pay,' he said. Leading Nato member-states — the UK, France and Germany, under the new Chancellor Friedrich Merz — have been leading the charge to arm Ukraine to the teeth, and have enthusiastically flirted with the idea of direct involvement in the conflict to defeat Russia. However, the apprehension to go to war with Russia without US backing has delayed the urge to confront Russia more directly. Instead, the three nations have led a public relations ramp-up of rhetoric against Russia, vowing to do everything in their power to ensure the attainment of a Ukrainian victory. On the information warfare front, the West started off by successfully cutting off the impactful Russian international TV station, Russia Today (RT) from its pre-war global reach. This was part of the strategy to win outright the Foucauldian battle over the framing of discourse, thereby influencing public opinion against Russia. But the advent of technology and social media has ensured the plurality of voices outside of the control of the traditional mainstream media. As such, RT continues to be available on other platforms such as Telegram. Lately, Nato has been particularly desperate to keep the Trump administration in the closest proximity, particularly in the wake of glaring indicators that Trump may no longer subscribe to Nato's Article 5, which refers to 'an attack on one is an attack on all'. The desperation to woo Trump was too conspicuous at the recent Nato summit in the Netherlands. Trying too hard to endear himself to Trump, Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte went as far as referring to the US president as 'daddy'. The summit ended on a positive note for members, at least publicly, concealing the simmering differences inside the offensive military bloc. But NATO's jubilation could be short-lived. A week in politics can be long, but 50 days is definitely too long. I bet a lot will change. Trump is desperate for a Nobel Peace Prize. Stopping the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza is the White House's top priority. Any hindrance to the attainment of set objectives will be met with tariffs, sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military might. Moscow insists that the Kremlin is willing and ready to negotiate a truce with Ukraine. However, in ending the conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin insists that the root causes of the war need to be addressed as part of a permanent solution, and not a shortcut to the Nobel Prize. The fundamental concerns, according to Moscow, include Nato's expansion to Russia's doorstep, the threat to Russia's national security and overall resetting of the geopolitical architecture, among others. As things stand, Russia seems the least worried about Washington's latest threat of punitive measures. Instead, it is Nato that must worry — a lot. The unpredictable nature of Trump's foreign policy, the culture of acting on the spur of the moment and the deep sense of omnipotence ensure that only the US leader knows what tomorrow brings. But it is Trump's critical nature of unpredictability in diplomacy that I'd like to focus on. It is made more important, and perhaps urgent, by the similar utterances of the members of Trump's inner circle who, one day, say similar things in line with their principal, and the next day everything said is negated publicly by the principal himself. To illustrate this factor, I want to take a draw on the utterances of key figures in the Trump administration, starting with the President himself. A few months ago, Trump and his team publicly claimed that Ukraine 'is a corrupt dictatorship with no path for military victory'. He further accused Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky of 'talking' the US into spending $350 billion on Ukraine and then said the money was 'missing'. And then, JD Vance, the Vice President, said: 'Zelensky shouldn't tell the American taxpayers what to do.' Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, said Trump was 'rightly upset with the Kyiv regime' after the President had remarked that Zelensky was a 'dictator without election'. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also blasted Zelensky 'for banning opposition media, parties, the Orthodox Church, suspending elections and the constitution to stay in power'. Additionally, FBI Director Kash Patel asked where 'the 100-plus billion dollars in Ukraine aid went'? And then, former national security adviser, Mike Waltz, said: 'Ukraine was and is one of the most corrupt countries in the world.' Such public utterances gave the clearest hint about what the Trump administration thinks about Ukraine. It is unfathomable to equate such remarks with a desire to send more weapons to Ukraine, directly or indirectly. The flip-flop demonstrated this week by Trump's U-turn on Ukraine — arming Kyiv through a third party in the form of Nato, does little to inspire global confidence in Washington's foreign policy. It blows hot and cold. It goes with the weather conditions. Does it obey money? So many questions, so many answers needed. According to veteran financial analyst and director of Goncharoff LLC, Paul Goncharoff, trust in the US is crumbling worldwide. Referring to President Trump's threat to sanction BRICS nations with a 10% tariff, Goncharoff said: 'Threatening most of the nations of our planet with unrealistic sanctions or tariffs if they trade in their own currencies and not with the US dollar is a poor way to gain trust.' The effect of the unipolar tariffs by the Trump administration makes the US look like 'a monkey playing with a grenade' in the eyes of the international community, Goncharoff said. Russia seems unbothered by Trump's threats and ultimatums. Moscow wants an amicable truce, not a shortcut to peace that would serve Trump's ambition to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Moscow has in its arsenal an abundant stockpile of nuclear weapons to defend itself against a Nato war. It is so unnecessary because WWIII would devastate the Earth with nukes. There may also not be anything that survives, least of all humans. That could be the price to pay as peace continues to be pushed away in favour of military confrontation. * Abbey Makoe is the publisher and editor-in-chief of the Global South Media Network ( The views expressed are personal. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, IOL, or Independent Media. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.
The Guardian
01-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Donald Trump's tariffs: a spectacle of struggle and control
Donald Trump has probably not read much Michel Foucault. But he appears to embody the French philosopher's claim that 'politics is the continuation of war by other means'. Nowhere is this more apparent than in his fondness for tariffs. He presents taxing foreign imports as a way to rebuild the American economy in favour of blue-collar workers left behind by free trade and globalisation. Yet he plainly thinks that politics is not about truth or justice. It is about leverage and supremacy. Britain is learning first-hand that Mr Trump, with his us-versus-them framing and taste for spectacle, is an accidental Foucauldian – using tariffs as tools of loyalty and dominance, even against allies. If Mr Trump follows through on his threat to impose a 20% tariff on all imports, UK growth will suffer. The effect depends on the response. No British retaliation would mean GDP 0.4% lower this year and 0.6% next. A global trade war would push that to 0.6% and 1%. Either outcome would wipe out the government's fiscal headroom. But while British policymakers fret over the shrinking margins of fiscal rules, Mr Trump sees no need to cloak power in objectivity. His rationale for imposing tariffs is confused. But two things appear to be driving this. One is his self-styled image as the ultimate dealmaker; the man who can turn any situation to his advantage. The other is his view of politics as a means for structuring society to favour one group over another – not just economically, but in terms of legitimacy and who defines reality. Tariffs will probably be lifted if nations accede to Mr Trump's wishes and, in doing so, reward politically useful constituencies, big tech allies or his wealthy donors. All three are visible in a paper-thin UK–US 'economic deal', likely to result in the lifting of Trump's tariffs – if the US signs it. It, reportedly, would further open British markets to US agribusiness; end the digital services tax, which applies to companies such as Amazon and Google; and make it difficult to hold AI companies, like those owned by Mr Trump's ally Elon Musk, liable for harm. The danger is that whenever there's a grievance, Mr Trump threatens tariffs – then offers to lift them if you do what he wants. It's even more blatant with the EU, which is expected to fine Apple and Meta under its digital competition rules. After backing Mr Trump early, Meta's Mark Zuckerberg is now calling in a favour – urging the administration to fold his fight with Brussels into the tariff plans, casting regulation as just another front in the trade war. What makes Mr Trump's 'Liberation Day' so dangerous is its scale. In 2024, the US ran a $1.2tn trade goods deficit. Only two months from his White House return, Mr Trump has imposed tariffs on goods from Canada, Mexico, China, all steel and aluminium imports, and foreign cars and auto parts. Next up: friends in Asia, including Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Vietnam. What emerges is less trade policy than performance politics – where coercion, loyalty and theatre converge. This is Foucault not in footnotes but in action: power exercised not through rules, but through disruption and dealmaking that rewards fealty and punishes defiance. Britain, like others, is navigating a battlefield. The US president is no student of Foucault but he seems to grasp the lesson. For him, war isn't the alternative to politics. It is politics.
![[Review] Hollow recursions of 'Mickey 17'](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F02%2F18%2Fnews-p.v1.20250218.9a5273af8cb0477cab6215214e4d4df1_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Review] Hollow recursions of 'Mickey 17'](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
18-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Korea Herald
[Review] Hollow recursions of 'Mickey 17'
In attempting to clone his own success, Bong delivers a film that's more expendable than essential Bong Joon Ho's first film in six years performs a curious act of self-replication. Like its protagonist, an endlessly reproducible space colonist, "Mickey 17" copies the director's familiar preoccupations while draining them of their animating force. The result is a $150 million big-budget exercise in diminishing returns. The premise proclaims itself as quintessential Bong: Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson), fleeing Earth's loan sharks, signs up as an "expendable" on a colonial mission to the ice planet Niflheim. His job is to die, repeatedly, while his consciousness gets downloaded into fresh-printed bodies. When Mickey 17 improbably survives a deadly fall, he confronts his replacement, Mickey 18, setting in motion a conflict between identical selves. What's missing here isn't Bong's politics -- his career-long interrogation of power relations remains intact -- but rather the formal ingenuity that once made those politics sting. Where "Snowpiercer" weaponized its ingenious train-as-society metaphor and "Okja" delivered a visceral thrill in its chase, "Mickey 17" lets its questions float in midair. From ecological crisis to colonial exploitation, drug abuse to the myth of meritocracy, even Foucauldian biopolitics in its calorie-controlled spaceship, each theme arrives with perfunctory efficiency and departs without resonance; they are narrative checkpoints with functions, not implications. Mark Ruffalo embodies this deficiency as Kenneth Marshall, a failed politician-turned- space colony commander. At a recent Seoul press conference, Bong praised the character's "unprecedented, cute charm" -- but it turns out he is neither cute nor charming. His performance, with its crass rhetoric and kitschy swagger, brazenly channels Trump by way of SNL while lacking the layered menace that made the wealthy family in "Parasite" so effectively unsettling. Toni Collette's Ylfa, the demagogue's vain, sauce-obsessed wife wielding excessive influence over her husband, resonates pointedly with Korean viewers with their own presidential politics, yet never transcends mere caricature. The film's fatal flaw lies in the metabolism of its storytelling. Each plot point arrives drowning in lengthy exposition, delivered through Mickey's nasal, disengaged voiceover, that simultaneously over-explains its mechanics while under-exploring its implications. Likewise, the climactic mass uprising, complete with preachy antiauthoritarian speeches about human dignity, trades the director's characteristic narrative skills for manipulative didacticism. It's a disappointing departure from Bong's characteristically organic narratives, where showing is usually prioritized over telling. When Mickey's narration waves away the controversy surrounding clone printing technology as "ethical fights and religious blah blah," it reads less as strategic evasion than narrative fatigue. Even Bong's trademark black humor has lost the tartness of his Korean-language works, suggesting something vital was lost in translation. Retreating to blockbuster territory provides no salvation, as the film's attempts at spectacle feel recursive. Cinematographer Darius Khondji renders Niflheim in the same apocalyptic whites that blanketed "Snowpiercer," while the indigenous Creepers -- giant furry creatures with gaping maws -- feel like genetic splices of superpig Okja and, from a more distant yet obvious source, the formidable Ohmu from Hayao Miyazaki's "Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind." The irony is unavoidable: In his first film since ascending to the pinnacle of global cinema with "Parasite," Bong has produced something that mirrors its titular expendable protagonist -- going through the motions of death and rebirth while losing something essential in each reproduction. His message of resistance remains, but falters in its disruptive power. Like the endless Mickeys churned out by the ship's printer, this is Bong's cinema with its consciousness intact but its body reduced to mere meat matrix. "Mickey 17" opens Feb. 28 in theaters in Korea.
