In a groundbreaking plebiscite held on 25 October, Chileans went to the polls to vote whether to uphold or replace the Pinochet-era constitution. An overwhelming majority of 78% voted in favor to draft a new constitution and to hold a constituent assembly to draw up this new document. Elections for the candidates who will partake in the constituent assembly will take place in April. But, why did Chileans vote so massively in favor of a new constitution? And how will these events unfold?
The Pinochet-era Constitution
To understand the importance of this vote and specifically why most Chileans voted to draft a new constitution we have to go back to 1973, when Chile suffered a US-backed military coup at the hands of General Augusto Pinochet, who then ruled the country from 1973 to 1991. Pinochet made sweeping neoliberal economic reforms kowtowing to the United States’ ultraliberal economists from the University of Chicago under leadership of Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman, dubbed the Chicago Boys. The Chicago Boys used the Southern Cone country as their neoliberal playground and the country implemented radical neoliberal reforms by imposing minimalist state intervention policies, the privatization of public goods, market liberalization and fiscal and monetary austerity measures. This fueled the fires of growing inequality as prices for privatized services such as education, pensions and healthcare skyrocketed. Consequently, the cost of living in Chile rose and wealth was concentrated in the hands of the rich elites.
More importantly, these neoliberal policies were embedded into Chilean society since Pinochet drafted a new constitution in 1980 that enshrined these philosophies. Many Chileans, however, consider this constitution fraudulent and an abomination to their civil rights.They argue that the constitution was drafted by a dictator during a repressive regime which embodied torture, extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses. Moreover, they claim that the process in which the constitution got written and implemented was unjust. First, the full political spectrum was not consulted. Opponents, mainly leftist parties, were not included in the drafting process. Second, the plebiscite itself was rigged as the state had exclusive control over the media, which it used for intense propaganda campaigns. Additionally, the state were able to manipulate the voting process through double-voting and the disappearance of registers.
After Pinochet stepped down in 1991, Chile’s faith in democratic politics was not restored. The old established political parties and the elites decided to adhere to the dictator-era constitution. The feeling of apathy crystallized when the Rettig Report (officially called the National Committee for Truth and Reconciliation Report), designed to investigate the human rights abuses under Pinochet, proved disappointing as reparation programs for victims and investigations into perpetrators were limited or dismissed entirely. Roughly 75% of Chileans believe no reconciliation about the Pinochet-era has been achieved. This is significant considering that under Pinochet’s iron rule 3,000 died or went missing, 40,000 suffered human rights abuses, and 200,000 fled the country.
A Long Overdue Response
Despite several constitutional amendments, the last of which occurred in 2017, the constitution still did not represent the political ideals important to Chileans. An undercurrent of dissatisfaction and political aversion remained present, and when President Sebastián Piñera announced the increase of the nation’s underground fare last year, protests erupted. First, the students started marching the streets of Santiago in protest, but soon after, cross-section of Chileans of sectors and classes joined in outrage over low wages, the rise in living costs and one of the highest rates of inequality in Latin America. Calls for strikes and protests moved across country and within a matter of days, half a million protestors had taken to the streets in Santiago alone.
The persistent protests coalesced in the demand for a new constitution. Citizens collectively demanded a fundamental change in their way of life to recover their dignity, by expanding economic rights, such as redistribution of wealth from the few to the many; civil liberties, such as reproductive rights; and political rights, such as having women and indigenous quotas in politics. As protests did not lose momentum, Piñera made concessions to maintain order. The concessions included, among others, the suspension of the underground fare increase, raising pensions, and most notably, a national plebiscite to vote on whether to rewrite the national constitution.
The process for rewriting the constitution began on October 25, when Chileans went to the voting booth and were asked two questions. First, they had to vote on whether they approved or rejected the drafting of a new constitution. Second, they voted on who would be responsible for drafting the constitution: either a constituent assembly comprising specially elected representatives, or through a mixed convention, consisting half of current congressional members and half of newly elected representatives. Chileans voted with an overwhelming majority of 79% for a new constitution that would be drafted by a constituent assembly of newly elected representatives.
So what happens next?
On April 11 2021, Chileans will elect their constitutional convention consisting of 155 citizens: 75 men, 75 women and one extra man or woman. Interestingly, this will be the first constitution to have been written with gender parity as opposed to men writing the constitution. Congress is in the process of determining whether there will be a quota for indigenous people in this convention as well. Once this convention has been elected, the representatives will have nine months and a possible three-month extension to write the new constitution. After the drafting, the representatives must have a two-thirds majority approval to present the public the new constitution. If the new constitution is ready the Chilean public will vote once more by means of a mandatory plebiscite whether to ratify the new constitution or dismiss it. If a simple majority of the Chilean population votes in favor the Pinochet-era constitution will be replaced, but if they vote to reject it the old one will remain in place until a new course of action is set.
It will be interesting to see how these events unfold for several reasons. First, obtaining a two-thirds majority might be a high threshold to reach. If the representatives find themselves in an impasse, they will need to make comprises on sensitive topics to draft a constitution that has broad support. Second, the scope of the document might prove difficult to demarcate. Last year’s protests witnessed grievances over issues as wide as pensions and police brutality. People are concerned that the representatives might want to address all of these issues. This could result in a constitution that is inflexible and sets unpragmatic and unrealistic standards which will blur the line between what should be a written component of the constitution and what should be left for government to interpret and enforce. Third, the next general elections are set for November 2021. What will happen if the new constitution is not ready by then? What power will a new president have over the drafting process and how will his or her role change when the new constitution is set in place? This is supposed to be an apolitical process, but currently one of the highest polling candidates to win the next general elections is the right-wing candidate Joaquín Lavín of the Unión Democrática (Democratic Union). Despite voting in favor of a new constitution he represents a wealthy elitist district who overwhelmingly voted against the new constitution and approves of the status quo. Some politically dispirited Chileans are worried that the future president might interfere with the elections. In reality, however, this seems unlikely considering the overwhelming majority opting for a new constitution and the political backlash an interfering president will receive from the general public. Last, the scope of the constitution might have consequences for the country’s economy. For example, an increase in rights for the environment and indigenous people might put a dent in Chile’s extensive copper, lithium, and gold and silver mining projects. A decrease in mining output could seriously affect its export, trade in general, and subsequently its GDP. Will Chileans cope when subsidies shrink in the face of economic uncertainty?
These uncertain times also leave room questions about Chile’s foreign policy. What will happen with Chile’s trade alliances? Since signing the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) in 2018, Chile’s congress still has not ratified the agreement. This begs the question if new rights for the environment, indigenous people, and laborers contradict the CPTPP paving the way for a resignation from partnership? Similarly, existing and pending Free Trade Agreements might constitutionally violate the rights of Chileans. For example, in 2019, after years of protests, the Pascua-Lama gold-silver project could not get launched by Barrick Gold Corporation ruled a Chilean high court. With enshrined environmental rights and rights for indigenous people’s lands, such events might happen more frequently contradicting past trade deals. Is the new government up to the task to either renegotiate these agreements or circumvent the new constitution? Venezuela and Bolivia, both members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the peoples of Our America (ALBA), have witnessed similar but different power changes that cater to the social masses. Depending on specifics of the new constitution, Chile might align itself with this regional bloc rather than the Pacific Alliance group of which it is a current member. Moreover, Chile’s new social construct might set up the country to become a new ally for Venezuela on the regional and global stage. This could help to legitimize Maduro’s presidency and alleviate some of the immense pressures on Venezuela imposed by the western world and the regional powers.
A stunning result in the national plebiscite has provided Chileans with the opportunity to reclaim their dignity and their country. Nevertheless, the near future of Chile remains uncertain. Questions remain as to what degree the social reforms citizens so desperately seek can realistically be implemented. Furthermore, high levels of uncertainty and volatile circumstances that come with the outcome of the plebiscite compounded with the impact of coronavirus can negatively impact foreign investments, levels of trade, and consequently the entire economy of Chile. Questions about foreign alliances within Latin America are relevant too. Only time will tell how ambitious Chile’s new constitution will be, how it will operate de facto, and in which ways markets respond to the new constitution.
Was Trump better for the world than Biden, after all?
Joe Biden and the State Department just approved a major deal with the Saudis for 500mln in choppers maintanance. Effectively, the US sold its soul to the Saudis again after the US intelligence services confirmed months ago that the Saudi Prince is responsible for the brutal killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Biden administration is already much more inhumane and much worse than Trump. Biden doesn’t care about the thousands of American citizens that he left behind at the mercy of the Taliban, the Biden administration kills innocent civilians in drone strikes, they are in bed with the worst of the worsts human right violators calling them friendly nations.
Biden dropped and humiliated France managing to do what no US President has ever accomplished — make France pull out its Ambassador to the US, and all this only to go bother China actively seeking the next big war. Trump’s blunders were never this big. And this is just the beginning. There is nothing good in store for America and the world with Biden. All the hope is quickly evaporating, as the world sees the actions behind the fake smile and what’s behind the seemingly right and restrained rhetoric on the surface. It’s the actions that matter. Trump talked tough talk for which he got a lot of criticism and rarely resorted to military action. Biden is the opposite: he says all the right things but the actions behind are inhumane and destructive. It makes you wonder if Trump wasn’t actually better for the world.
Biden’s worrisome construct of security and self-defense in the first year of his term
US President Joe Biden’s foreign policy is failing so far. He can’t get the Iran nuclear diplomacy on track. The Afghanistan withdrawal was a disaster seen by all, placing an unusually high number of weapons and armaments in the hands of the Taliban and leaving everyone behind, to the point that one wonders if it was intentional. The US military has been able to accomplish far more impressive and bigger logistics tasks in the past, so when they want to they can do it.
More worrisome, however – and because it is also oriented towards future impacts – is Biden’s construct of vital concepts such as security, international peace and self-defense which has already displayed a consistent pattern during the first year of his term. The signs are already there, so let me bring them out to the surface for you.
Treating a counter-attack in self-defense as an original, first-move strike
This is a pattern that can be noticed already in Biden’s reading of what constitutes defense. It first struck me in a place where you might not think of looking. It originated from the criticism of the previous Trump administration’s support for the destructive Saudi Arabia campaign on Yemen, leaving Yemen as the biggest famine and disaster on the planet. To avoid the same criticism, the Biden administration decided to do what it always does – play technocratic and legalistic, and hope that people won’t notice. On the face of it, it looked like Biden ended US participation by ending the “offensive” support for Saudi Arabia. Then in the months after the February decision, reports started surfacing that the US actually continues doing the same, and now most recently, some troops from Afghanistan were redirected towards Yemen. Biden didn’t end Yemen; he set up a task force to examine and limit US military action only to defensive capabilities, which sounds good to a general observer. It reminds me of that famous Einstein saying that all the big decisions were to be taken by him and all the small decisions were to be taken by his wife, but there hasn’t been one big decision so far. So see, it just turns out that everything falls under defense, ask the lawyers. Usually no one would object to the well-established right to defend yourself. The problem with that is that the US is actually in Yemen. Treating any counter-strike and any response to your presence as an original, first-move attack is not only problematic but it also simply doesn’t work in legal terms. It goes along the lines of “well, I am already here anyways, so your counter-response in self-defense is actually an attack and I get to defend myself”. If the issue was only with terrorist or rebel organizations (because let’s face it, who cares about the Houthies in Yemen?) I don’t think we would be discussing this. But as you guessed it, this approach can already be traced as a pattern in Biden’s thinking and the way he forges alliances, draws red lines and allows things to happen, and it stretches to areas that most people definitely care about such as a possible military conflict between the US and China.
Let’s take the newest development from today. The US just announced that it has entered into a trilateral partnership with the UK and Australia in the Indo-Pacific, which is encirclement of China par excellence. Where it gets interesting is that the trilateral partnership is purported to be only for “advanced defense capabilities”. The equivalent of this is someone from another city squatting at the door step in your apartment, inviting two others to join, and then when in the morning you push them and step on them to go to work, the squatters claiming that you attacked them and calling the police on you in your own apartment. This is Biden’s concept of self-defense: since I am already here in your space, you are attacking me.
The US is trying to start something with China but it doesn’t know how to, and China seems completely unconcerned with the US. Chinese leader Jinping doesn’t even want to meet Biden, as became clear this week. China doesn’t care about the US and just wants to be left alone. They already said that in clear terms by reading it out loud to Wendy Sherman last month. Biden didn’t have to ask for a meeting in that phone call this week because he already knew the answer. Wendy Sherman got a clear signal on her China visit that the US president won’t be getting that coveted red carpet roll-out any time soon.
So the story says that the US is going all the way to the other side of the world and staging military presence there but only to defend itself. The US has no choice but to move in to defend all the US citizens at risk in the Indian Ocean — that’s the stand-up comedy line of the week. It is staging military presence right at China’s doorstep — if not in Chinese waters, and the idea is “yes, that’s your turf but now that I’m here, if you push me to leave, you are attacking me”. This is the strategy of narcissists and those that are looking to point the finger to their opponent when they just don’t have anything, so they stage something. China is in the long-term game, playing against itself. The US is that number 2 that’s trying to create provocation. In the Indo-Pacific, the US is biting more than it can chew. China is not a big mouth or one to throw around military threats. That’s the US style: “be very careful, we might bomb you if you don’t do what we say”. A dog that barks doesn’t bite. On the other hand, China is more like a Ferrari — it will go from 0 to 200 in seconds and then it will go back to its business. The US and Biden will be left whimpering but no one will jump to save the US from its own folly because self-defense in the US packaging is not even bought by the US government itself. Even they don’t buy their own packaging. So why should anyone else?
Treating embarrassing discoveries and things that don’t go my way as a threat to international peace
This one is a big one. With this one, Biden is playing with the queen, namely action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter in the name of international peace and security. A threat to international peace and security is grounds for action under Chapter 7 which includes military action, and it’s never to be spoken lightly. Words have consequences. The UN Security Council rarely specifies grounds for action under chapter 7 for threats to international peace and security but it’s enough to take a look at the practice: resolutions were passed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, in response to 9/11, against Kaddafi who was marching toward Benghazi to wipe out the people in 2011, in relation to genocide, etc. Grounds for a threat to international peace can’t be “because I don’t like the way things are turning out for me”.
Peace and security are not like beauty – in the eye of the beholder. There has to be an actual or imminent attack and actual military action or violence. Loose interpretations of threats to peace and security are a sign of weak leadership.
Leaders who construct dissent and criticism as terrorism in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement, as I have argued about the FBI previously in the left media, are weak leaders. In smearing Martin Luther King, the FBI argued national security. As director Oliver Stone said in Cannes this summer, when he was investigating the JFK assassination, every time he was getting close, he heard “national security”.
You can see a lot about the character of a nation by the way it constructs security, and notice traits such as narcissism, weakness, cheating. The Biden Administration has to know that a threat to international peace and security can’t be “things that make my government look bad”. In 2001, the world followed the US in Afghanistan because there was an actual military attack. The world won’t follow the Biden administration on a bogus threat to international peace that can best be summed up as a major embarrassment for the US government. Suggesting a link is a threat to the fabric of international society. Not only is it a sign of national narcissism but also a sign of arbitrariness and authoritarianism. Treating criticism and the exposure of US government crimes as if it were a military attack is what horror movies are made of. What’s next? Droning journalists?
Treating issues which are a subject to treaties, rules and negotiations as a threat to international peace
The Biden security construct stretches to various regions, including my own. This first struck me with Biden’s executive order regarding the Western Balkans when he tied blocking these countries from EU accession to a threat to international peace, which carries significant consequences. If a country, let’s say Bulgaria, is exercising its lawful right to veto EU processes, hypothetically, based on Biden’s understanding, the US could table a resolution for Chapter 7 action to punish an EU member-state for blocking the accession of an EU candidate because that’s a threat to international peace. That could hypothetically lead to military action against an EU country making use of its veto. Biden doesn’t have a veto in the EU. Do you know who does? Bulgaria. So until Biden becomes an EU country he doesn’t have a say.
Biden was visibly irritated that the process of EU accession has been stalling for quite some time, especially with N. Macedonia and Albania at the EU’s doorstep, so he decided to give it a go. Let’s not forget that the Balkans are a favorite Biden region and this goes back to the 1990s. I have written about it before: Biden is stuck in the 2000s when if you mentioned the Western Balkans the words international peace were a guaranteed association. Not anymore. Negotiations, rules and voting are the peaceful and reasonable way to resolve issues, agree or even not agree in some situations, and are the opposite of war and aggression. Treating these ways as a threat to peace is just the rhetoric of those who can’t get their way. But it’s also indicative of a worrisome trend with Biden that anything that the US government doesn’t like can be dressed as a threat to international peace, which carries the most significant of all consequences in the international arena.
Treating lawful counter-measures as a threat to national security
Perhaps the best and most fascinating example of lawful counter-measures I ever heard was brought by Andrew Clapham at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. Here is the story. The UK issued unlawful sanctions on a country. In response, lawful counter-measures by that country targeted jam exports because a jam factory in Scotland was the key to turning the elections. The targeted counter-measures worked, hit jam exports, discontent people in the region voted the other way and the government that put in place the sanctions to begin with was ousted. This was a brilliant example that you hit where it hurts and you do it lawfully. Counter-measures don’t have to be identical. The US likes to put tariffs on Louis Vuitton bags in retaliation when it deals with France, for example. In the Trump trade wars, Europe would hit bourbon and jeans exports as a counter-measure. You hit their signature product. Not all counter-measures are illegal and count as an attack. International law is full of examples.
Similarly, lawsuits against a government are a lawful counter-measure. This area reveals another part of Biden’s worrisome construct of national security. A threat to sue the US government cannot in and of itself be a threat to national security. Tortured reading of what is national security is a sign of weak leaders, narcissists, those on the losing end, or straight up losers – or all of the above.
Treating lawful counter-measures as a cause for self-defense is not only a sign of a wrong understanding of self-defense, but is the ultimate sign of narcissism. Usually those who attack know better and brace for impact in anticipation of the counter-measures. Narcissists, on the other hand, cry that they are being attacked when they receive a counter-strike in response. Strategists know better.
Mistreatment of whistleblowers, critics and opponents as spies and as a threat to national security
This one is an easy one. Only losers treat whistleblowers and critics as spies and as an automatic threat to national security. Take the treatment that Gary Stahl has received at the hands of the Biden Administration and the FBI, for example. Again, the US government doesn’t get to construe a huge embarrassment (in what will soon be revealed to shows the true criminal nature of the US government) as a threat to international peace. This is a problem for America. Not only doesn’t China plan to attack militarily the US any time soon over what’s to come, but China is largely unconcerned with the US and would like to be left alone. Any talk about a risk of military conflict could only mean that it is the US that plans to attack because they are embarrassed they got caught red-handed and the world will see the US government’s true nature. Talk of threat to international peace has a very high threshold. No one cares about how America would feel – that’s your problem, not an issue of international peace.
The Biden concept of security is that of an ugly, pretentious, old woman who is told she can’t enter because her ticket is not valid. She then throws a feat screaming she was attacked, beaten and insulted, expecting everyone to be on her side. But the world simply doesn’t care about the problems of this pain-in-the-ass anymore. The US government will have to try much harder if they want to present the issue as anything close to security and self-defense, let alone a threat to international peace. That tune is old and there are no buyers.
The US surely thinks very highly of itself if they think that a scandal like that is worthy of a military conflict but literally no one else sees the US as this important anymore. This scandal will matter only to America in what it reveals about all the layers of the US government across rank, institutions and administrations. That’s it. It ends there. Any talk of Chapter 7 threshold is war mongering and no one will care.
People talk about the Biden doctrine on Afghanistan but the Biden doctrine that will be sealed in history will be something along the lines of “Anytime I get caught, it’s a threat to international peace and security.” This is how Biden will be remembered in history: for creative writing endeavors in the security field and no substantial foreign policy achievements.
Biden’s credibility restoration plan
Although damages of the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan cannot be easily undone, by taking a series of wise steps, Biden can send a strong signal that America is coming back.
Joe Biden’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan has shattered his reputation as a safe haven for allies. This is while, he pledged to restore U.S. leadership after Trump by confronting China’s and Russia’s growing totalitarian ambitions, restoring historic alliances with European allies, and ending the never-ending conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
But he is not the only President whose decision has eventually damaged the United States’ global reputation. Donald Trump’s capitulation deal with the Taliban, Barack Obama’s indolence in Syria, and George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq have all tarnished the United States’ credibility around the world. The question now; however, is no longer whether Biden and his predecessors should have acted differently. It’s how the United States can minimize the damage.
Biden should begin by speaking the truth. So far, the President has failed to admit the failure of his withdrawal plan. Biden ought to be straightforward with himself, the American people, and the whole world.
Biden’s policy should, of course, vary depending on the area and global conditions. To promote its interests in the Indo-Pacific area, the United States should station a few ambassadors, including a Navy or Coast Guard attaché, in the Pacific Island countries of Tonga, Tuvalu, and Kiribati. In addition, a considerable number of troops currently stationed in Afghanistan should be redeployed to the Pacific. Finally, Biden’s administration should engage with U.S. defense contractors to speed up the transfer of military equipment to Taiwan. Getting Taiwan its armaments swiftly would be a powerful show of support as a steadfast ally, as well as provide modern platforms to prevent a Chinese amphibious invasion.
The Biden administration should also do all in its power to rebuild relations with European partners. For the very first time, NATO invoked Article 5, which identifies an assault on one member as an assault on all. Since then, soldiers from a variety of countries have fought and died alongside US troops. Nonetheless, Biden decided to leave Afghanistan without consulting the governments of these countries, leaving them to plan emergency rescue efforts for their populations. Close allies of the United States are understandably enraged. America’s behavior is being chastised in Paris, Berlin, and the British House of Commons on both sides of the aisle.
Last month, at a meeting of regional leaders in Baghdad, Macron made it clear that, unlike the Americans, he was dedicated to remaining in the Middle East. “Whatever the American choice is,” he stated in public remarks in Baghdad, “we will maintain our presence in Iraq to fight terrorism as long as terrorist groups function and the Iraqi government requests our assistance.” It was a clear example of Macron’s idea of “strategic autonomy,” which implies European independence from U.S. security policy, and an attempt to use the United States’ humiliation to underline that Europe and Washington were not always on the same page. At an emergency G7 summit, Mr. Biden is said to have turned down allied requests to extend the August 31 deadline for exit.
The Biden administration’s recent decision not to penalize Nord Stream 2 pipeline participants has enraged Europeans as well. Poland and Ukraine underlined their worries in a joint statement about the ramifications of choices taken on the pipeline without the participation of nations directly impacted, claiming that Nord Stream 2 poses both geological and ecological risks to Europe.
As a result, whether it’s diplomatic recognition of the Taliban regime, humanitarian aid for the Afghan people, or any other major issue, the US should not take any more action without engaging partners. Mr. Biden should also dispatch senior members of his national security team to Europe and other regions of the world to reinforce America’s commitment to their security.
As to the Middle East, Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, in a Foreign Affairs article described “America’s opportunity in the Middle East,” suggesting that diplomacy may work where previous military interventions have failed. The United States’ involvement in the area is frequently portrayed in military or counter-terrorism terms, and as a binary option between going all-in or going all-out. Instead, Sullivan advocated for a strategy that relied more on “aggressive diplomacy to generate more long-term benefits.”
Accordingly, the President and his team in Vienna should get the new Iranian administration back to the negotiating tables and rejoin the JCPOA and ease the tensions in the Middle East. Also, the United States should do all possible in Afghanistan to secure the safe transit of Afghans who qualify for U.S. visas to the Kabul airport – and to keep flights flying until they are able to leave. This should apply to both Afghans who dealt closely with the United States’ military, and to those who engage with U.S. media and humanitarian organizations and must get visas from a third country. In addition to ensuring that the United Nations and humanitarian groups have the resources they need, the United States should cooperate with its Security Council allies to guarantee that the Taliban does not hinder the free flow of help.
Moreover, to follow any influx of jihadists to Afghanistan, intelligence agencies will have to rededicate resources and increase surveillance. They must be pushed to coordinate their efforts on the Taliban in order to keep the most threatening groups under control. The United States could set an example by agreeing to accept a fair share of any displaced Afghans. Neighboring countries like Iran and Pakistan, which already have millions of Afghan refugees, are closing their borders.
Biden may not be able to prevent all of the disastrous repercussions of the Afghan catastrophe, but he must act now before the harm to U.S. interests and moral stature becomes irreversible. By taking these steps, he can send a strong statement to the world that he has learned his lessons and that America is coming back.
American Weaponry in the Hands of the Taliban
The hasty withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan attests to both the indifference of the U.S. administration as regards...
Deloitte reports FY2021 revenue
Deloitte today reported aggregate global revenue of US$50.2 billion for the fiscal year ending 31 May 2021 (FY2021), a 5.5%...
Action on Trade is Necessary for Businesses to Unlock Net Zero Targets
For businesses to reach their emission targets, the global trading system needs to adapt, and businesses are calling for the...
Lebanon crisis: More international assistance needed urgently
Lebanon’s enduring economic crisis risks reversing decades of gains in people’s wellbeing, the head of the UN World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday. Speaking from the...
77 million children have spent 18 months out of class
The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) says the world is facing an education crisis due to the COVID pandemic, that has left nearly 77...
Synchronicity in Economic Policy amid the Pandemic
Synchronicity is an ever present reality for those who have eyes to see. –Carl Jung The Covid pandemic has elicited...
Paris climate deal could go up in smoke without action
Unless wealthy nations commit to tackling emissions now, the world is on a “catastrophic pathway” to 2.7-degrees of heating by...
Economy3 days ago
Russia, China and EU are pushing towards de-dollarization: Will India follow?
Intelligence4 days ago
How Taliban Victory Inspired Central Asian Jihadists
Finance4 days ago
Instagram: Why It Is the Best Social Media Platform for Marketing
Southeast Asia4 days ago
The new AUKUS partnership comes at the cost of sidelining France, a key Indo-Pacific player
Southeast Asia4 days ago
Visit of Chinese Foreign Minister to Southeast Asia
Middle East1 day ago
Turkey’s Destruction of Cultural Heritage in Cyprus, Turkey, Artsakh
Americas4 days ago
Biden’s credibility restoration plan
South Asia3 days ago
Panjshir – the last stronghold of democracy in Afghanistan