Latest news with #LloydAustin
France 24
a day ago
- Politics
- France 24
Israel-Iran conflict ‘drives final nail in the coffin' of postwar world order
On October 12, 2023, as Israel and its allies reeled from the carnage wrought just days earlier by Hamas militants in southern Israel, the then Pentagon chief was asked whether Washington would place any conditions on its hugely expanded security assistance to its Middle East ally. Lloyd Austin's answer to reporters was a straightforward 'no', based on the assumption that Israel's military would 'do the right things' in its war against the Tehran-backed militia. Twenty months on, Israel has flattened Gaza, bombed swathes of Lebanon, seized further territory in Syria, and now launched a direct attack on Iran as it pursues what it describes as an 'existential' fight against the Islamic Republic and its allies in the region. Throughout the fighting, its ultra-nationalist leaders have dismissed the mounting evidence of war crimes committed in Gaza, which led the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November 2024. Senior cabinet members have openly advocated the forced removal of Gaza's population, which would amount to a genocidal crime, and the dismemberment of Syria. Netanyahu himself has discussed the possibility of assassinating Iran's head of state and precipitating 'regime change' in the Islamic Republic in interviews with US media. Ironically, such rhetoric brings Israel closer in line with the inflammatory bluster typical of its arch-foe Iran – with the important difference that Israel does possess nuclear weapons and a military capable of backing up its increasingly provocative statements. The extraordinary escalation is a 'natural consequence of the impunity that has prevailed in the region over the past two years", says H. A. Hellyer, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) in London. 'The fact that Israel has faced no consequence for repeatedly infringing international law sends a very clear signal: that if it chooses to do more, it can,' he explains. 'And it can count on the most powerful actors in the international community simply not doing very much or actually empowering and emboldening it.' The most immediate consequence of Israeli impunity in the Middle East is the immense suffering inflicted on civilian populations, nowhere more so than in Gaza, where Israel's ongoing military campaign has killed more 55,000 people, according to local health officials, and rendered the narrow strip of land largely uninhabitable. Another consequence, with more far-reaching implications, is the further erosion of the rules-based order in place since World War II, says Karim Emile Bitar, a Middle East expert at Beirut's Saint-Joseph University and visiting professor at Sciences-Po Paris. 'Recent events have driven the final nail into the coffin of international law and of what has been referred to as the liberal international order,' he says. 'The message to the world is that if might is on your side, you can break all the rules, trample on international law and all the standards that have been in place since 1945, and there will be absolutely no accountability.' 'A new Middle East' Netanyahu has described Israel's actions as ushering in a 'new Middle East', a phrase that has haunted the region at least since the 2003 Iraq War, when the US and its allies sought to remodel the region – with catastrophic consequences. 'There has been a lot of jubilation (among critics of Iran), imagining that these are the 'birth pangs' of some sort of new Middle East. On the contrary, this is a spiral of violence, fostered by an environment of impunity that allows for vigilante action to take place without repercussions,' says Hellyer. 'Nobody needs to be a fan of the Iranian regime, or Hezbollah or Hamas, to see that this activity is incredibly destabilising for regional order and security,' he adds. 'It also has massive repercussions for international order and international security, because it means that there isn't a rules-based order at all. It becomes the law of the jungle. And that should be quite concerning to all of us.' 12:50 Bitar notes that few people in the Sunni Arab world will be 'shedding a tear' for the Iranian regime – 'and for good reason, given the disruption and suffering caused by Tehran's regional proxies". However, he adds, 'they are also alarmed by an increasingly unbridled Israel, which – unlike Iran – has the means to wipe out entire cities, and whose senior ministers now openly advocate ethnic cleansing in Gaza". An immediate consequence is likely to be a regional arms race to try to narrow the gap with Israel. In Iran's case, analysts point to the likelihood of a fresh push to go nuclear, thereby achieving the exact opposite of the stated goal of Israel's military operation. 'Israel's attack is making Iran feel very vulnerable. Their conventional deterrence has failed, and I think we're going to see more and more calls from within the country to pursue nuclear weapons,' says Daryl Kimball of the US-based Arms Control Association, noting that contrary to Israeli claims, Western intelligence assessments have so far concluded that Tehran is not currently pushing to militarise its nuclear programme. Kimball says there are already voices in Iran calling for the country to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits states that don't have nuclear weapons from pursuing them. 'Bombing (Iran) simply makes sure they will try a hundred times more because they will assess there is no rules-based order, there is simply the threat of force and mutually assured destruction,' adds Hellyer. 'Anticipatory' self-defence The phrase 'birth pangs of a new Middle East' was famously used by former US secretary of state Condoleeza Rice to refer to the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, one of many conflicts with roots in the regional upheaval caused by the US invasion of Iraq. 'Back then, there was at least a stated aim to promote democracy and human rights in the region, even if it was largely a smokescreen,' says Bitar. 'Now there is no such pretence. We're back to Bismarckian power politics, in which might precedes right, and a world governed by nationalist authoritarian leaders in the mould of Putin and Trump.' In the present climate, he adds, 'the dwindling number of people who talk about respect for international law are regarded as hopeless idealists disconnected from reality". While Israel's attack on Iran has drawn condemnation around the world, the messaging from Western leaders has been far more mixed, with talk of Israel's 'right to defend itself' often taking precedence over references to international law. Hours after Israel launched the first wave of attacks, French President Emmanuel Macron, whose planned summit on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was scuttled by the outbreak of war, put the blame squarely on Iran and said France stood ready to defend Israel if necessary. Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz went a step further, arguing that Israel was 'doing the dirty job for all of us' by taking on in the Iranian regime – prompting outcry in a country where the emphasis is normally on de-escalation. In an op-ed published by the Guardian, Sydney-based international law professor Ben Saul argued that support for Israel's 'right to self-defence" had no legal grounding in the present conflict and set a dangerous precedent. He described Israel's attack on Iran as 'part of a pattern of unlawful 'anticipatory' violence against other countries', along with its recent destruction of Syrian military bases and equipment, despite 'the absence of any attack by the new Syrian authorities on Israel'. 'The risk of abuse of 'anticipatory' self-defence is simply too great, and too dangerous, for the world to tolerate,' Saul wrote, noting that Russia claimed to invade Ukraine 'in part because it speculatively feared NATO expansion'. He added: 'Many countries have hostile relations with other countries. Allowing each country to unilaterally decide when they wish to degrade another country's military, even when they have not been attacked, is a recipe for global chaos – and for the unjustified deaths of many innocent people.' 'One pillar of the post-war order is attacking another' In an interview with Middle East Eye, Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Tehran, noted that past US administrations had refused to countenance a large-scale Israeli attack on Iran, but that Netanyahu 'has obtained more leverage over the US (since Donald Trump's return to power) and Israel is more of a law unto itself'. Dalton said other Western countries had been 'incredibly limp in not holding Israel to account' for its conduct over the past 20 months, a stance he attributed in part to their growing disregard for international law. 'They don't look at the legal issue. They won't look at the circumstances in international law when a pre-emptive strike against a potential enemy is lawful and when it is not,' he said. 'Israel's strike was an illegal aggression. But we're prepared to talk frankly in those terms about Russia but not about Israel.' 11:50 While Western powers have failed to rein in the violence, the institutions they helped found decades ago to uphold the rules-based order have not sat idle. Since the start of the Gaza war, both the ICC and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have moved with urgency, the latter issuing successive rulings last year to warn of the risk of genocide in Gaza and order an end to Israel's military operations in the south of the enclave. Neither court, however, has the capacity to enforce international law if world powers refuse to comply. When the ICC issued its arrest warrant for Netanyahu, former US president Joe Biden described the move as 'outrageous'. His successor at the White House has gone a step further, issuing an executive order in January to authorise sanctions on the court over its 'illegitimate' actions against the US and its 'close ally Israel'. The Trump administration has also withdrawn the US from several UN bodies and slashed the organisation's funding, creating a situation in which 'one pillar of the post-war order is attacking another', according to Brian Brivati, visiting professor of contemporary history and human rights at Kingston University. 'The leading founder of the UN is now undermining the institution from within, wielding its security council veto to block action while simultaneously starving the organisation of resources,' Brivati wrote on The Conversation earlier this week. 'The combination of a powerful state acting with impunity and a superpower disabling the mechanisms of accountability marks a global inflection point,' he added. 'Other global powers, including Russia and China, are taking this opportunity to move beyond the Western rules-based system.' The breakdown of the system could have catastrophic consequences for global stability, warns RUSI's Hellyer, pointing to the need for international rules and co-operation to tackle a host of global challenges. 'There will always be new crises and conflicts, not least of which dealing with the climate emergency,' he says. 'And we need international law and the rules-based order to at least mitigate their consequences.'
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Straits Times
Ukraine says it held talks with US on supporting defence projects under joint fund
FILE PHOTO: Flags of Ukraine and U.S. are pictured during a meeting between the U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov at the Pentagon, in Washington, U.S., August 30, 2024. REUTERS/Daniel Becerril/ File Photo Ukraine says it held talks with US on supporting defence projects under joint fund KYIV - Senior Ukrainian officials spoke with their U.S. counterparts about the possibility of supporting defence projects in Ukraine under a joint investment fund set up last month, Kyiv's first deputy prime minister said on Wednesday. Kyiv is aiming to shore up support from Washington, which has been its top military backer, as it seeks to end its grinding war with Russia, now in its fourth year. Yulia Svyrydenko said the discussions included U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and took place during the G7 summit in Canada. "Talks focused on expanding the fund's mandate to support defense sector projects inside Ukraine," she wrote on social media platform X. The two countries established a joint reconstruction fund as part of a deal allowing U.S. access to Ukrainian minerals, which Kyiv hopes will pave the way for more support against Russia's full-scale invasion. Svyrydenko did not specify the nature of the defence projects. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has previously asked the U.S. for a licence to produce critical Patriot air-defence systems used to shoot down ballistic missiles. He has also said Kyiv is willing to purchase weapons from the United States, which under the Trump administration has not announced any new arms packages for Ukraine. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
RNZ News
6 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
US-Australia defence alliance alive and well, insists expert
From left to right, Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles, Britain's Defence Secretary John Healey and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin sit down for talks at the Old Royal Naval College, during the AUKUS Defense Ministerial Meeting in London on 26 September, 2024. Photo: AFP An expert on US-Australia alliances says AUKUS is not dead and, in fact, will never die. Australia says it is "very confident" in the future of the pact to equip it with nuclear-powered submarines, despite the Pentagon putting it under review. It said it had been aware for a while about the review, which media only revealed publicly on Thursday . Professor Alan Tidwell, who directs the Centre for Australian, New Zealand and Pacific Studies in Washington, said he was a firm believer the pact was "perpetual". "I'm a firm believer that AUKUS is one of those things that will probably never die," said the researcher, who will be in Wellington on Tuesday for the Institute of International Affairs national conference. "No-one will ever issue a press release that says AUKUS is dead, it certainly won't come out of Washington. "They may change the shape of AUKUS, they may change the delivery schedule, but I think it's kind of built in." Ever since the US, Australia and UK signed the pact in 2021, critics have expressed doubt that the Americans would actually deliver any subs in the 2030s. Their contention that the US needed all the subs it could build for itself was echoed by top Pentagon official Elbridge Colby - now leading the review - after President Donald Trump began his second term. "In principle, [AUKUS is] a great idea, but I've been very sceptical in practice," Colby said last year. However, Tidwell believes the outcome of the review won't be to stop AUKUS, nor would it be to carry on as it is. "I think that the outcome will be something in between," he said. "You know, I think that this is a great opportunity for the United States to push harder on the question of its own shipbuilding. "It's also an opportunity to keep AUKUS in place." The second part of AUKUS - Pillar Two - which New Zealand is still looking at joining, was another consideration. "If you go back in time, Pillar Two always looked like it was an add-on, you know, to the submarine deal... and it's taken on a life of its own. "In many respects, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom have already been sharing high-level technology, have already been involved in joint ventures." For instance, Australia and the US just signed a memorandum of understanding for the former to take part in making new long-range precision strike missiles. Professor Alan Tidwell will attend the Institute of International Affairs national conference. Photo: Supplied Defence Minister Judith Collins said she was not aware of any invitation to participate in this programme, but that the defence capability plan envisaged investment in enhanced strike capabilities, which could include land-based missiles, "in the near term". Tidwell said: "In one respect, you could simply say that the Pillar Two creation was really just taking things that were already happening and repackaging them". "Whether New Zealand joins Pillar Two formally or not, I really don't think is particularly important on the technology side. It might be important on the political side." Tidwell said the timing of the US announcement of the review was interesting, just before Trump meets Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and just after Albanese pushed back on a US request for Canberra to hurry and raise defence spending still more - by a lot. However, in the world of AUKUS, reviews happened, he said, noting the UK recently did its own that gave the thumbs-up. Meantime, the Trump administration was "pretty chaotic, and for them to organise this in that kind of orchestration, it surprises me... it doesn't seem to be in keeping with the nature of this administration". As for China, it would be pleased, he said. "Any time there's disquiet in a bilateral relationship like that, one's opponent would be happy, regardless of its origin." This added to the strains on the US-Europe relationship, so that, although the administration was getting some of what it wanted - like more defence spending by allies - it had also unleashed negative things. "I think the idea that the Poles are talking about, about nuclear weapons is terrifying." In March, Poland - a bulwark of Western help for Ukraine in the war waged by Russia - [ called on the US to transfer nuclear weapons to its territory. Tidwell did not think the Ukrainians' innovation with drones to fight Russia could translate wholesale into swapping out subs under AUKUS to undersea drones instead. "I wouldn't want to simply say, 'OK, we no longer need submarines'. "I don't think that we're quite at the point of a universal revolution that sees manned undersea boats vanish from use. "I just would not want to put my all my eggs in one basket and I think having both would be better than just having one. "You know, the innovation cycle that's so interesting in Ukraine is perhaps more the point than what the technology actually was." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
South China Morning Post
11-06-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Why US defence chief's attack on China won't find favour in Southeast Asia
After listening to US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth's all-out attack on 'communist China' at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, some might have wondered what the Chinese people would make of it. But as a Chinese delegate listening to him live, I was wondering what Hegseth's boss, US President Donald Trump, would think. In February, Trump called US Vice-President J.D. Vance's speech in Munich bashing European allies 'brilliant'. This time, we haven't had his thoughts. Advertisement I wondered, not only because Trump doesn't have a clear China strategy, but also because his attitude towards US allies in Europe and Asia is like a pendulum. It is well known that Trump wants his European allies to increase defence spending so they can deal with Russia on their own, leaving the US to shift its focus to the Indo-Pacific, and China in particular. It appears today that America's Asian allies are more important than its European allies. The problem, though, is that the US has far fewer allies in Asia and none see China, their largest trading partner, as an existential threat in the same way that America's European allies view Russia. In Singapore, Hegseth said the China threat is 'real' and 'could be imminent', claiming that it is public knowledge that the People's Liberation Army has been tasked with being capable of attacking Taiwan by 2027. This conclusion is quite different from that of his predecessor Lloyd Austin, who said at the dialogue in 2023 and 2024 that a conflict was neither imminent nor inevitable. Many in Southeast Asia would question such assessments of security threats from a television anchor-turned-defence secretary . When asked by US Senator Tammy Duckworth to name one member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations during his confirmation hearing, Hegseth couldn't even do that . In the question and answer session at the Shangri-La Dialogue, his answers were a hodgepodge. 05:00 US defence chief Pete Hegseth warns of 'imminent' China threat during Shangri-La Dialogue US defence chief Pete Hegseth warns of 'imminent' China threat during Shangri-La Dialogue Hegseth seemed to suggest that allies in Asia should increase their defence spending to 5 per cent of gross domestic product because that's what he says Nato members are pledging. That's a fool's errand.
Russia Today
04-06-2025
- Business
- Russia Today
Pentagon chief to skip key Ukraine meeting
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will not attend Wednesday's Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in Brussels, the Pentagon has confirmed. It marks the first time the head of the Pentagon will miss a gathering of the group. The US has been the lynchpin of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which has provided Ukraine with around $126 billion in weapons and other military assistance since its inception in April 2022. Under former Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin, Washington also served as the group's chair, with the secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff attending its monthly meetings. However, Hegseth will not be present at the meeting of 50 defense ministers in Belgium, Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson confirmed, citing scheduling issues. At the same time, she stressed that 'the United States is focused on ending the war in Ukraine as quickly as possible, on terms that establish an enduring peace.' An unnamed US official cited by AP also said Hegseth will not participate in the meeting remotely. According to Politico sources, US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker will represent Washington at the gathering, and Hegseth himself is slated to take part in a NATO meeting in Brussels on Thursday. Politico noted that Hegseth's absence is yet another sign of 'softening of the Trump administration's relationship with Europe, and Ukraine.' Under Trump, Washington has not announced new military assistance for Ukraine. The Trump administration has increasingly urged EU governments to reduce their reliance on Washington and increase their military spending. Hegseth himself has been skeptical of the US involvement in the Ukraine conflict. In February, he said that returning Ukraine to its 2014 borders was 'unrealistic' and that the country is unlikely to join NATO. Nevertheless, the Trump administration has positioned itself as the key mediator in the conflict, consistently pushing Russia and Ukraine to reach peace. Moscow has praised Washington's efforts, saying the US better understands Russia's key security concerns caused by Kiev's desire to join NATO and the bloc's creeping expansion towards Russian borders.
