Latest from Amman Net
Mail & Guardian
2 minutes ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Struggle for the Freedom Charter goes on
Hope: The Freedom Charter was adopted on 26 June 1955 at Kliptown in Soweto. Its contents were drawn from submission from people all over South Africa. The Freedom Charter was adopted in Kliptown 70 years ago, on 26 June 1955. Thousands of delegates travelled across South Africa — by train, by bus, on foot — to take part in the Congress of the People. They met under an open sky, gathered on a dusty field where a wooden stage had been erected. Armed police watched from the perimeter but the atmosphere was determined and jubilant. One by one, the clauses of the Charter — on land, work, education, housing, democracy, peace — were read aloud, and each was met with unanimous approval. The charter distilled months of discussion and collective vision. Discussions of the charter seldom place it in its full historical context. Yet to understand its true significance, we must see it as part of a wider global moment — an era in which oppressed peoples across the world were rising against colonialism. After the defeat of fascism in 1945, there was a deep sense of possibility. The victory fuelled a new international moral order, embodied in the founding of the United Nations and its charter, with its emphasis on human rights, self-determination and peace. In the colonised world, this sparked a wave of anti-colonial struggle and growing demands for independence. India gained independence in 1947, China, through force of arms, in 1949 and Ghana in 1957. In April 1955, two months before the Freedom Charter was adopted, 29 newly independent and colonised nations met in Bandung, Indonesia. The Bandung Conference gave voice to the aspirations of the Global South — to end colonialism and racial domination, assert autonomy in world affairs and build cooperation among formerly colonised peoples. Bandung thrilled anti-colonial forces globally. The Freedom Charter emerged amid this excitement. This hopeful period was shadowed by a fierce imperial backlash. In Iran, prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh's nationalisation of oil in 1951 was met with a CIA- and MI6-backed coup in 1953. In Guatemala, president Jacobo Árbenz's land reforms provoked a similar response, and in 1954 the CIA orchestrated his removal. Around the world, popular sovereignty was crushed to preserve imperial power. The Korean War (1950–53) marked the aggressive militarisation of the Cold War. In January 1961, Congo's first elected leader, Patrice Lumumba, was assassinated with the support of the CIA. In April that year the CIA organised the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. In 1965, the US began a full-scale invasion of Vietnam. In 1966, Ghana's Kwame Nkrumah was overthrown in a Western-backed coup. In South Africa, the vision set out in the Freedom Charter was swiftly met with state repression. Months after its adoption, 156 leaders of the Congress Alliance were arrested and charged with treason. Then came the Sharpeville Massacre in March 1960. The apartheid regime banned the liberation movements underground and, in response, the ANC took the decision to turn to armed struggle. The Freedom Charter cannot be separated from the process that gave it life — a process that was profoundly democratic and rooted in the daily lives of people. In 1953, the ANC and its partners in the Congress Alliance issued a call for a national dialogue: to ask, plainly and urgently, 'What kind of South Africa do we want to live in?' The response was remarkable. Across the country, in townships, villages, workplaces, churches and at all kinds of gatherings, people came together to develop their demands. Submissions arrived handwritten, typed or dictated to organisers. The charter expressed a vision of South Africa grounded in equality, justice and shared prosperity. 'The people shall govern' affirmed not only the right to vote, but the principle that power must reside with the people. 'The land shall be shared among those who work it' challenged the dispossession at the heart of colonial and apartheid rule. Crucially, the charter called for an economy based on public benefit rather than private profit: 'The national wealth of our country, the heritage of South Africans, shall be restored to the people.' Education, housing and healthcare were to be universal and equal. The charter envisioned a South Africa without racism or sexism, where all would be 'equal before the law', with 'peace and friendship' pursued abroad. After the banning of the liberation movements in the 1960s and the brutal repression that followed, the Freedom Charter did not disappear — but it receded from popular memory. In the 1980s, it surged back into public life with renewed force. The formation of the United Democratic Front in 1983 in Cape Town, and the emergence of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) in 1985 in Durban, gave new organisational life to the charter. Grassroots formations drew on unions, civics and faith groups to take the charter out of the archives and the underground and into the streets. For the powerful mass movement organised in workplaces and communities the charter promised a future grounded in radical democracy and a fundamental redistribution of land and wealth. The charter became a vital reference point for the negotiations that began after the unbanning of the liberation movements. Its language and principles profoundly shaped elements of the new Constitution. The charter's insistence that 'South Africa belongs to all who live in it' and that 'the people shall govern' was carried through into the constitutional affirmation of non-racialism and universal suffrage. Guarantees of equal rights, human dignity and socio-economic rights such as housing, education and healthcare echo the charter's vision. But the transition involved compromise. In the 1980s, the charter had been a call for deep structural transformation. At the settlement, key clauses — particularly those calling for the redistribution of land and the sharing of national wealth — were softened or deferred. The final settlement preserved existing patterns of private property and accepted a macroeconomic framework shaped in part by global neoliberal pressures. While the vote was won, the deeper transformations envisioned in the charter were postponed. The result is that today, 31 years after the end of apartheid, structural inequalities and mass impoverishment remain. The charter's economic promises have not been fulfilled. The 2024 general election marked a historic turning point. Taken together, the two dominant parties garnered support from less than a quarter of the eligible population. Nearly 60% of eligible voters did not participate. The charter's promise that 'the people shall govern' demands more than a vote — it requires sustained participation. This requires rebuilding mass democratic participation from below. It means rekindling the culture of popular meetings, community mandates and worker-led initiatives that grounded the charter in lived experience. It means going beyond elections and restoring a sense of everyday democratic agency — in schools, workplaces and communities. It means making good on the promise to redistribute land and wealth. It also means rebuilding solidarity across the Global South. South Africa played a leading role in the formation of the Hague Group in January this year to build an alliance in support of Palestine. This was a major breakthrough that echoed the spirit of Bandung. The meeting that the group will hold in Bogota in July promises to significantly expand its reach and power. We must recognise the scale of resistance to transformation, both internationally and at home. The criminal attack on Iran by Israel and the United States exposes the brutality of imperial power — and the urgent need for a global counterweight. In South Africa economic elites and NGOs, think tanks and media projects funded by Western donors often work to frame redistributive politics as illegitimate or reckless. These networks have grown bolder as ANC support has declined. In June 2023, the Brenthurst Foundation — funded by the Oppenheimer family — convened a conference in Gdansk, Poland. Branded as a summit to 'promote democracy', the conference issued a 'Gdansk Declaration' widely read as an attempt to legitimise Western-backed opposition to redistributive politics in the Global South. The Democratic Alliance and the Inkatha Freedom Party were present, along with former Daily Maverick editor Branko Brkic and representatives of Renamo (Mozambique) and Unita (Angola), both reactionary movements that were backed by the West to violently oppose national liberation movements. The event marked the open emergence of a transnational alliance aimed at neutralising any attempt to challenge elite power in the name of justice or equality. It is a reminder that the struggle to realise the Freedom Charter's vision will not be won on moral terms alone. It will require effective political organisation, ideological clarity and courage. The charter was born of struggle. It must now be defended and renewed through struggle. Ronnie Kasrils is a veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle, and South Africa's former minister for intelligence services, activist and author.
Egypt Independent
3 minutes ago
- Politics
- Egypt Independent
Denmark has long been Euroskeptic. Donald Trump helped change that
CNN — As Denmark takes over the presidency of the European Union, Danes are more strongly pro-European than at any time in the past two decades – a shift in sentiment that can at least partly be attributed to US President Donald Trump. An eye-opening survey published in March by Berlingske, a Danish daily newspaper, said 41 percent of Danes now see the United States as a threat. It also said 92 percent of respondents either 'agree' or 'mostly agree' that the Nordic nation needs to rely more on the European Union than the US for its security. Given the recent tensions between Washington and Copenhagen, those statistics may not be surprising. Since his return to the White House, Trump has spoken frequently and aggressively about Greenland, an autonomous crown dependency of Denmark, saying he would like the US to own it. Vice President JD Vance and members of the Trump family have made what many see as provocative trips to and statements about the world's largest island. After Vance's visit to the US military's Pituffik Space Base in Greenland in March, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen pushed back on his claim that Denmark isn't doing enough for defense in the Arctic, calling her country 'a good and strong ally.' Back in Trump's first administration, too, Greenland was a hot topic. In 2019, he reportedly accused Frederiksen of making a 'nasty' and 'absurd' statement in discussions about the island. US Vice President JD Vance (second right) and second lady Usha Vance (second left) tour the US military's Pituffik Space Base, on March 28, 2025 in Pituffik, trust in Trump Lykke Friis, a prominent Danish international affairs analyst and a former minister, told CNN that the country has experienced 'a triple shock' that includes the war in Ukraine and the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU, known as Brexit. The biggest shock, however, has come in the form of Trump. 'Now we have a different Denmark,' she said. Speaking to CNN from Copenhagen, Marie Bjerre, the Danish minister for European affairs, conveyed a similar message – that the second Trump administration has changed Danish perspectives toward both the US and the European Union. 'Things have dramatically changed in Denmark and our attitude toward Europe,' she said, without mentioning the president's name directly. US President Donald Trump, left, walks by Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen prior to a group photo of NATO heads of state and government in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. Geert Vanden Wijngaert/AP She was also very clear that Denmark feels a sense of disappointment in its longtime ally. Denmark would still like to have a strong relationship with the US, Bjerre said, 'but in a situation where the US is closing itself more around itself… is threatening us with tariffs and also criticizing Europe, our freedom of expression and all sorts of other things. Of course, in that situation, we have to be stronger on our own.' She added, 'The world order, as we have known it since the Second World War, is changing and we have to deliver to that geopolitical new situation that we are standing in.' The minister also referenced the historic ties and shared past experiences of both nations, expressing a degree of frustration, if not anger, about how that relationship has changed. 'You could not put a paper in between the US and Denmark, we have always supported the US. We went into war with our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan… Seeing us, as a country, being criticized for not being a good ally, of course, that does affect our opinion,' Bjerre said. Per capita, Denmark lost the second-highest number of soldiers of all the US-led coalition partners fighting in Afghanistan. In total, 43 Danish soldiers died, equating to 7.82 deaths per million citizens. The US, by comparison, lost 7.96 soldiers per million. 'We used to be a very, very transatlantic country… that has plummeted,' said Friis. 'There is now the feeling… we simply cannot trust him,' she said – the 'him' being Trump. 'Huge' change in tone The shift in Danes' opinions coincides with Denmark taking up the rotating, six-month EU presidency. Historically, the southernmost Scandinavian nation has tended to be Euroskeptic, Friis told CNN, never feeling European at heart. She described it as sustaining a transactional relationship with Brussels, based on 'pragmatic co-operation.' Denmark has long worried about the EU wading into Danes' lives, fearing in particular for its relatively unregulated labor market. It has various opt-outs on EU policy, including not joining the EU's single currency, the euro. 'We do things differently to other European nations,' said Bjerre. Politicians and citizens used to fear that the EU 'would become too dominating and too powerful,' Friis said, but now 'the fear is the complete opposite.' Danes feel the bloc is 'too weak' to deal with Putin to the East and Trump to the West, she said. Friis also described the prime minister's shift in tone as 'huge,' saying Frederiksen used to be 'very skeptical towards the EU.' In June, Frederiksen announced that Denmark was quitting the so-called 'Frugal Four,' an informal group of EU nations that had pushed to limit common spending, saying that 'the most important thing is to rearm Europe.' Laying out Denmark's priorities for the EU presidency later that month, she reiterated that view, saying: 'Now more than ever Europe needs to step up and stand together. We have to build an even stronger Europe, a more secure Europe where we are able to protect our democracies.' EU-commissioned, biannual polls show a clear trend of increased trust in the EU over the past two decades, rising from 46 percent in spring 2005 to 74 percent this past spring. Steeper increases can be seen during Trump's first term, after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as Trump's second term began. The war in Ukraine has had a significant influence on Danish views on the EU, Friis said. 'The very fact that you had a war in our backyard has sort of created a completely new sort of atmosphere around security in Denmark, people are worried. People are prepping now because they're scared about what could happen also to our own security,' she said. Bjerre said Copenhagen's EU presidency would prioritize a 'stronger Europe and a changing world,' with Europe having a real focus on security. Denmark takes the European helm, then, at a time of increasingly pro-European sentiment among its own population and a wider recognition in Europe that it must do more to stand on its own. The problem is that some of Europe's most pressing issues – Ukraine, trade tariffs and security – mean talking to the US and Trump. And at the moment, there may not be much love lost between the two.
Egypt Independent
3 minutes ago
- Politics
- Egypt Independent
Russia welcomes Trump's cut to Ukraine's military aid but it could be deadly for Kyiv
CNN — The reactions to the Trump administration's decision to The reactions to the Trump administration's decision to pause some weapons shipments to Ukraine couldn't be more illustrative of the conflict: welcomed by the Kremlin, branded 'inhumane' by Kyiv. The Pentagon said on Wednesday that it was pausing some aid because it needs to review whether the assistance that is provided to Ukraine is aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' agenda. But the move could have deadly consequences for Ukraine as the halt on shipments includes missiles for Patriots, the US-made air defense systems that are currently protecting millions of Ukrainian civilians from Russia's increasingly massive daily aerial attacks. Kyiv endured the biggest ever attack overnight into Friday, with 13 dreadful hours of explosions and buzzing overhead as Russia launched a record 539 drones towards the Ukrainian capital and 11 cruise and ballistic missiles, according to the country's air force. As the smoke began to clear over the city, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky praised the military for shooting down or jamming the majority of the Russian drones and missiles. 'It is critically important that our partners continue to support us in defending against ballistic missiles. Patriots and the missiles for them are true protectors of life,' he said – a remark clearly aimed at trying to persuade Trump to reconsider the pause. Zelensky got a chance to make the case directly to Trump when the two spoke by phone on Friday. A readout of the call from Zelensky's office said the two leaders 'agreed that we will work together to strengthen protection of our skies.' 'We are ready for direct projects with the United States and believe this is critically important for security, especially when it comes to drones and related technologies,' the readout said. No other air defense system can match the Patriots in its effectiveness – but their power comes at a huge cost, their production is limited and the demand for them is growing rapidly around the world, especially in areas deemed by the Trump administration to be more strategically important – such as the Middle East or, southwest Asia and South Korea. A Patriot system received by Ukraine is seen on the Day of Ukrainian Air Force on August 4, 2024. Vitalii Nosach/Global'Inhumane' decision The announcement by the US sent shockwaves through Ukraine, with presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak saying it would be 'very strange' and 'inhumane' to stop supplying missiles that are used to protect civilians. But despite the panicked reaction, the move was not entirely unexpected. Trump has threatened to withdraw Ukraine's support in a bid to force Kyiv to the negotiating table, and he has previously briefly paused shipments of aid. While the US was for a long time Ukraine's biggest supporter, singlehandedly covering about 40 percent of Ukraine's military needs, it has not announced any new aid to Ukraine since early January, when Trump returned to power. Meanwhile, European countries have stepped up their support of Ukraine. According to the German Kiel Institute, which monitors aid to Ukraine, Europe has now surpassed the US as the biggest donor – having supported Ukraine to the tune of 72 billion euro ($85 billion) in total military aid since the start of the full-scale invasion to the end of April, compared to 65 billion euro ($76.6 billion) from the US. But the numbers don't tell the whole story. 'Ukraine has a lot of different needs, and some of them can be filled by other suppliers, but some can only be filled by the United States,' Daniel Byman, director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told CNN. 'For ballistic missiles in particular, only the US can provide this. A cut off in those leaves a huge gap in Ukraine and air defenses. And given the kind of daily and horrible Russian attacks, that's very consequential.' Russia has ramped up its airborne attacks against Ukraine in recent weeks. Ballistic missiles pose the deadliest threat and, according to Ukrainian officials, Russia fired as many as 80 of these in June alone. Rescuers work at the site of a Russian missile strike on a residential building during an attack in Kyiv, Ukraine, on June 23. Maxym Marusenko/NurPhoto/Getty Images While Ukraine managed to shoot some of them down, likely with the Patriot system, the ones that slipped through caused unimaginable suffering. One ballistic missile strike killed 21 people in Dnipro last week. The week before that, 21 people were killed when a ballistic missile hit an apartment building in Kyiv. Deadly attacks like this will become more frequent if Ukraine loses access to the Patriots, which are widely considered to be among the best air defense systems available. They are capable of bringing down cruise and hypersonic missiles, short-range ballistic missiles and aircraft. According to analysts, the Ukrainian military has been using them in an extremely effective way, shooting down missiles that Moscow claimed were impossible to intercept, such as the Kinzhal ballistic missiles. At an estimated cost of about $1.1 billion for each system, the Patriots are by far the most expensive piece of equipment sent by allies to Ukraine. According to the CSIS, missile rounds for the Patriot come in at roughly $4 million each – an incredibly high price tag. But even if Ukraine had the cash to purchase these systems, which it doesn't, it would find it difficult to source them. 'The production pace of Patriot missiles is low. Not because the US doesn't want to produce more, but because it's very sophisticated – you can't produce thousands a year, you can produce hundreds and you have allies all over the world who need them,' Pavel Luzin, a senior fellow at the Centre for European Policy Analysis, said Thursday during a discussion at the NEST Center, a think tank. Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the Patriot missiles for the US Army, has been ramping up production to record levels – but even so, it is only able to make just over 500 per year, with a plan to increase production to 650 a year by 2027. A major $5.5 billion deal between US and German companies to begin manufacturing the Patriot missiles outside of the US for the first time was approved last year following a NATO order of up to 1,000 rounds – but the first deliveries are not expected until several years from now. President Volodymyr Zelensky finds out about the training of Ukrainian soldiers on the Patriot anti-aircraft missile system at an undisclosed location in Germany, on June 11, 2024. Jens Buttner/Reuters Germany, which has donated several of its Patriot systems to Ukraine in the past, is looking into the option of purchasing some missiles for Ukraine from the US, the spokesperson for the German government said in a news conference on Friday. Sidharth Kaushal, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a UK-based defense think tank, said that while global stockpiles of Patriot missiles are not 'critically low,' there are some grounds for concern about shortages. 'The requirement for Patriots, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, is growing significantly,' he said. He said that given that some of the missiles initially meant for Ukraine were diverted to other allies, including Israel, it was likely that the US wanted to – or even had contractual obligations to – deliver interceptors to countries who are, in some cases, located within range of Iranian missiles. Still, Kaushal said the US itself is highly unlikely to face any kind of urgent shortage of missiles. 'While the US has sent a considerable number of Patriot interceptors to Ukraine it has replenished stocks through buy-back schemes from Japan and more recent shipments were diverted from export customers rather than the US' own inventory,' he said in a note emailed to CNN. Boost for Ukraine Zelensky said previously that Ukraine would need some 25 Patriot batteries to defend its airspace effectively. It has roughly half a dozen at the moment, although the exact numbers and their locations are closely guarded secrets. What is known, though, is that the Ukrainians are very worried about running out of the munitions – especially because the latest US pause doesn't concern future aid but impacts deliveries that have been approved and funded and were on their way to Ukraine, where the military was counting on receiving them in the very near future. 'One thing is not having future sales approved; another is stopping what is already in the pipeline. And so that's a very negative shift that is harmful for the future defense of Ukraine and the effect is going to be pretty quick. The Russian attacks are happening daily, and Ukraine relies on these systems to counter them,' Byman said. The pause in shipments is likely to give yet another boost to Russia. 'It's part of (the Russians') strategy. They believe that without the US support, Ukraine is more likely to collapse or at least make concessions… so it certainly increases the incentives for Russia to keep military pressure on Ukraine,' Byman said. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a US-based conflict monitor, said that previous delays in deliveries of aid to Ukraine have invariably accelerated Russian gains on the battlefield. When the US dragged its feet on military aid in late 2023 and early 2024, Russia pushed forward in Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine. When the US paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March, Russian forces advanced in Kursk. 'The suspension of US aid to Ukraine will reinforce Russian President Vladimir Putin's theory of victory that posits that Russia can win the war of attrition by making slow, creeping advances and outlasting Western support for Ukraine,' the ISW said. The pause in shipments will likely reinforce Putin's belief that time is on Russia's side – and that if he can delay negotiations for long enough, his troops will eventually outlast Western assistance to Ukraine. For Ukrainians, who have sacrificed so much trying to defend their country against a bigger, stronger aggressor, the absence of US military aid is not just yet another setback – it's potentially a disaster.
South China Morning Post
5 minutes ago
- Automotive
- South China Morning Post
China, EU close to EV tariff deal, state media says, dismisses ‘trade diversion' fears
China and the European Union have largely finalised the 'technical' part of negotiations towards resolving their electric vehicle (EV) tariff dispute, with the deal now hinging on 'political will' from the European side, according to Chinese state-affiliated media. Yuyuan Tantian, a social media account linked to state broadcaster CCTV, reported on Friday night that the 'technical negotiations' were essentially complete, with only the 'final step' remaining. 'The key now depends on whether the EU can demonstrate the necessary political will to push for a resolution of the issue,' it said. Meanwhile, state news agency Xinhua in a commentary on Saturday dismissed claims of a new 'China shock', describing fears that Chinese exports deflected by US tariffs were flooding Europe as 'grossly overstated'. In April, China and the EU agreed to negotiate a 'price undertaking' mechanism that would allow Chinese EV makers to avoid tariffs by adhering to minimum export prices. The dispute centres on EU tariffs of up to 45.3 per cent imposed last October on Chinese EVs, to counteract what Brussels sees as an unfair edge enjoyed by Chinese manufacturers due to huge state subsidies and lower production costs. The reported progress in the talks comes ahead of a critical EU-China summit that is expected to primarily focus on trade issues. EU leaders led by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen are expected to visit Beijing later this month as the two sides mark 50 years of diplomatic ties. Over the past two years, the EU has persisted in challenging Beijing on trade issues, including subsidies, alleged dumping and other practices that 'distort the market', with numerous investigations either ongoing or at the planning stage.
Nafeza 2 World
10 minutes ago
- Politics
- Nafeza 2 World
نافذة ترامب وميلانيا والقاذفة السوداء.. فيديو التحية يشعل "إكس"
السبت 5 يوليو 2025 02:00 مساءً نافذة على العالم - ...but your activity and behavior on this site made us think that you are a bot. Note: A number of things could be going on here. If you are attempting to access this site using an anonymous Private/Proxy network, please disable that and try accessing site again. Due to previously detected malicious behavior which originated from the network you're using, please request unblock to site. المصدر : نافذة ترامب وميلانيا والقاذفة السوداء.. فيديو التحية يشعل "إكس" الكلمات الدلائليه أخبار العالم العرب أخبار عربية أخبار محلية العرب اليوم نافذة على العالم
