Latest news with #Ukraine-Russia
Winnipeg Free Press
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Can militarization deliver a safer world?
Opinion In a recent speech, Prime Minister Mark Carney said, 'Rising great powers are now in strategic competition with America. A new imperialism threatens. Middle powers compete for interests and attention, knowing that if they are not at the table, they will be on the menu.' We hear this dog-eat-dog sentiment shared quite often now, most notably from U.S. President Donald Trump, and it is often used as a justification for Western countries to spend more on their military. I would argue that the world has not spiked in terms of violence, and I would also argue that we cannot forget that an important context of violence is inequality and poverty. Focusing on militarization diverts our attention and creates conditions that will exacerbate international poverty and drive further violence. The world is becoming more violent, right? Not really, at least not in the sense of rising interstate wars. For simplicity I focus on the post-Cold War period, 1989-2023, and use deaths from conflict as the indicator. Less than 10 per cent of the 3.47 million conflict-related deaths over this period were due to interstate conflict (i.e., war). Most, almost 55 per cent, were from intrastate deaths. The rest are considered one-side violence or non-state conflicts. The world is clearly more violent for many people but often this is not the result of war (interstate conflict) but due to internal conflict, e.g., the Rwandan genocide. Conflict-based deaths have a strong regional distribution. The regions most affected by violence are Africa and the Middle East. During this period, Africa has faced 350 deaths per 100,000 people; the Middle East 285 deaths; Europe 40 deaths; Americas 31 deaths; and Asia-Oceania 19 deaths. There is evidence of an increase in annual deaths from conflict since 2012, but this has been driven by non-state and one-sided violence, not interstate violence. It was not until 2022, with the latest episode of the Ukraine-Russia war, that interstate conflict death numbers rose. A recent study estimated that up to 100,000 Ukrainians were killed and 300,000 were wounded, while 250,000 Russians have died and 700,000 have been wounded. The data I have presented are slim in support of the view that the world has become more violent. But I accept that there might be better indicators of violence or that the argument is not about recent history, but about fear of the future. That is, the fear is that the rise of authoritarian countries, most notably the rise of authoritarianism in the United States (not to mention China and Russia) and that these states will fuel future interstate violence. So, will better arming us will make us less vulnerable to aggressive authoritarian pressures? I do not specialize in military and political theory, so I leave this debate for others. But what I would like to argue is that an unequal world is one that can create and exacerbate tensions and lead to rising violence including interstate violence. Violence flows from a world in which certain groups, nations, and regions accumulate more wealth and power at the expense of others. Conversely, there are many ways in which a poor group can experience self-identified economic improvement. It is critically important that the international economy is rules-based, that these rules embed economic justice within them, and that wealthy nations support relatively poorer ones. Worthwhile support comes in the form of fair trading and investing systems. Moreover, the poorest nations require assistance in the form or high-quality development assistance. But fair trade, investment, and aid are diminishing. Trade barriers are rising. For instance, the U.S. has placed a 37 per cent tariff on garments from Bangladesh. This is an odd move, because it is unlikely the U.S. will ever gain a share of garment manufacturing. It is a low-wage sector and, with anti-immigration pressures in the U.S., American wages are likely to rise well beyond what is needed for a competitive garment sector. For years, a key international goal was that development assistance would reach 0.7 per cent of national income. This is only one of many needed reforms. But the increasingly ubiquitous goal of spending two per cent (or five per cent) of national income on military has usurped that goal. The U.K. has stated its plan to cut its development assistance and the U.S., by cutting its agency USAID, it has already done so. Canada and other countries are following suit and plan to reduce their development assistance. The case of the Israel-Gaza/Palestine conflict demonstrates how military force does not solve the problem. After over a year and a half of violence, there is no end in sight. Civilian deaths and infrastructure obliteration will only aggravate inequality and cycle back into more violence. Fear about a violent future should compel us to embrace a justice-based economic system. The alternative is imperialism and the violence that logically flows from inequality. Jerry Buckland is a professor of economics and international development at Canadian Mennonite University.
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Politics
- Atlantic
Trump Seems to Be Backing Off His Anti-War Stance
Donald Trump returned to office as president in January with both democratic legitimacy and a mandate to accomplish what he'd promised during his campaign. One of his promises was clear, consistent, and unmistakable: to put 'America First' by ending our involvement in risky and expensive overseas conflicts. Yet Trump's recent support for Israel's escalating attacks on Iran—and his intimations that the United States may become directly involved in the conflict—suggests that he is well on the way to betraying his anti-war mandate. Trump has repeatedly pitched himself as a peace candidate during his political career. In 2016, he ran to Hillary Clinton's left on foreign policy, arguing that she was 'trigger happy' and that foreign adventurism 'has produced only turmoil and suffering and death.' Trump returned to this message in his most recent race. He came out of the gate at his first campaign stops in 2023 by promising to restore peace after, he claimed, then-President Joe Biden had brought the world 'to the brink of World War III.' When Kamala Harris took up the mantle for the Democrats, Trump warned his rallygoers that, if she was elected, their 'sons and daughters will end up getting drafted to go fight for a war in a country that you've never heard of.' His claims were dubious and hyperbolic, but in both of his successful campaigns, Trump correctly recognized what many pundits, politicians, and liberals failed to see: The Democratic Party establishment's foreign-policy positions are out of step with the views of most Americans. A Pew Research survey released in April found that a majority of Americans (53 percent) do not believe that the U.S. has a responsibility to help Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. According to a March poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, strong majorities of Americans say they want a cease-fire in both the Ukraine-Russia (61 percent) and Israel-Palestine conflicts (59 percent); a May poll by the University of Maryland found that an even stronger majority of Americans prefers negotiation with Iran (69 percent) over striking its nuclear facilities (14 percent). Biden's presidency was historically unpopular for any number of reasons, but an important one was his focus on wars in Europe and the Middle East while issues such as immigration and inflation roiled the country. Although Trump's bombs-away militarism during his first term was far from dovish, one of his few unambiguously positive accomplishments was that he managed to avoid entangling American troops in any new large-scale conflicts. His anti-war rhetoric and no-big-wars track record, combined with Harris's refusal to break with Biden on foreign policy, her embracing of endorsements from the Iraq War–associated Cheneys, and her identification of Iran (rather than Russia or China) as the United States' greatest adversary, seem to have led many Americans to view Trump as the candidate more likely to pursue peace. By clear margins, voters trusted Trump over Harris to handle foreign conflicts. Were he to turn around and now involve the country in just the sort of war he's spent years decrying, he would join his predecessor in allowing international imbroglios to derail the domestic agenda that he was elected, for better or worse, to enact. The Trump administration is sending mixed signals about its plans. Although the president has suggested that the United States may get involved in the clash between Israel and Iran, other officials quietly insist the U.S. won't become an active participant unless Iran targets Americans. As for Israel's claims that Iran is months away from creating a nuclear weapon—claims that Israeli officials have repeated since the early 2000s —the U.S. intelligence community, including Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, dispute that these plans are under way. The president appears unmoved, telling reporters, 'I don't care' what Gabbard said about Iran's nuclear program. 'I think they were very close to having one,' Trump insisted. Americans have rejected the path to war at the ballot box again and again in the past decade and a half, ever since Barack Obama burst onto the campaign trail in 2007 with a speech in which he called the Second Gulf War 'a tragic mistake' and invoked 'the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been.' Trump has innumerable faults, many of them disqualifying, but he has also grasped better than many politicians that the American people are exhausted by decades of pro-war, world-policing foreign policy. Trump promised something different, something voters very much wanted: a focus on issues at home rather than conflicts abroad that might drag the United States into another disastrous war.
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Lindsey Graham Wants Trump to Go 'All In' on Iran as Security Council Meets
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has called for a regime change in Iran, saying President Donald Trump should go "all in" to help Israel combat Iran's nuclear threat. Why It Matters Israel on Friday launched attacks against Iran's capital city of Tehran in what it called a "preemptive strike" and warned its citizens of retaliatory bombings from Iran. While attending the Group of Seven summit on Monday, Trump announced plans to cut his trip short, telling reporters, "I have to be back early — for obvious reasons." Multiple media outlets including Fox News and CNN have reported that Trump has asked for a National Security Council meeting to convene in the Situation Room upon his return to Washington, D.C. Newsweek reached out to the White House Monday night for comment. Tensions in the Middle East have escalated as Iranian Defense Minister General Aziz Nasirzadeh previously warned that Iran could attack U.S. bases if nuclear talks break down with Trump's administration or if hostilities continue mounting. What To Know While speaking with Fox News' Sean Hannity Monday night on the strikes, Graham said, in part, "So here is the task at hand. Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat. If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations. But here's the bigger question, wouldn't the world be better off if the Ayatollahs went away and replaced by something better? Wouldn't Iran be better off?" Taking to X, formerly Twitter, Graham also said, "No one can say that President @realDonaldTrump has not tried to seek peace regarding Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Iran. He has gone the extra mile and I appreciate that. However, you have to have willing partners to make peace. Iran played the same old game with the wrong guy. God bless Israel, God bless the United States and God bless President Trump." This is a developing story that will be updated with additional information.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Friends with benefits
Most countries today prefer keeping options open rather than locking in ties. That may help stave off WWIII Modi's visit to Cyprus – the first by an Indian PM in 23 years – is being read as a deft signal to Türkiye following the latter's support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor. New Delhi was clearly not happy with Ankara taking Islamabad's side. Cyprus, which has a history with Türkiye given the latter's invasion of the country in 1974 and effective partitioning of northern Cyprus, strongly supports India's position. So this appears to be a classic case of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend'. Except that ties between India and Türkiye aren't totally belligerent, and routine relations continue on several fronts. In a similar vein, in the latest round of Iran-Israel conflict several countries, including India, aren't taking a clear side. They would ideally like to preserve ties with both parties. The same can be said of the Ukraine-Russia war with many countries looking to have balanced relations with both Kyiv and Moscow after the hostilities end. The 21st century foreign policy dictum, therefore, is more closely aligned with the saying 'there are no permanent friends and enemies in geopolitics'. Be it US's approach to Afghanistan after the return of Taliban, Vietnam's ties with US today that have buried the acrimony of the Vietnam War, or the improving ties between South Korea & Japan, there's a sense that our increasingly interconnected world provides opportunities that can overcome differences. Does this approach make the world safer? Well, going by the number of conflicts currently raging or threatening to break out (from Ukraine to Taiwan) it may appear not. However, giving primacy to geopolitical flexibility puts a check on Cold War-type bloc scenarios from taking hold and furthers the case of multipolarity. That in turn could at least help stave off World War III, if not prevent regional conflicts. Hence, India's multialignment strategy appears to be surfing the right wave. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
The Sun
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Sun
Trump due in Canada as G7 confronts Israel-Iran crisis
KANANASKIS: Group of Seven leaders including US President Donald Trump began arriving Sunday in the Canadian Rockies for a summit where they will consider whether to take a common stance as violence intensifies between Israel and Iran. The three-day gathering in the mountain town of Kananaskis marks the return to the international diplomatic calendar of Trump, who in his second term has been even more emboldened to shatter norms. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had designed an agenda aimed at minimizing disagreements within the club of wealthy industrial democracies -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States. But Canada is now sounding out countries about making a joint call for 'de-escalation' between Israel and Iran, a diplomat said. Two days before the summit began, Israel stunned the world with a massive military campaign that it says is aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear program and has targeted officials, scientists and security sites. Iran has fired back with drones and missiles at Israel, with senior officials from both countries threatening massive destruction. Both sides say civilians have been killed in the strikes. G7 leaders could see divisions over the crisis. Trump has praised Israel's strikes, noting it used US weapons, even though Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defied his public calls to hold off as the United States sought a negotiated solution with Iran on the cleric-run state's contested nuclear work. European powers have been cautious and refrained from criticizing Israel. French President Emmanuel Macron has called for restraint and urged Iran to re-enter talks with the United States, while blaming Tehran for escalating tensions over its nuclear program. Japan, which historically has maintained cordial ties with Iran, made a forceful break with allies in the United States and Europe when it denounced Israel's strikes as 'deeply regrettable.' Flying to '51st state' Trump is visiting Canada despite his mockery of the United States' northern neighbor, which he has said would be better off as the 51st state. Tensions have eased since Carney, a former central banker known more for his competence than pizzazz, took over in March from Justin Trudeau, an erstwhile star on the global stage whom Trump made no secret of disliking. When Trump last visited Canada for a G7 summit in 2018, he bolted out early and from Air Force One tweeted insults about Trudeau, disassociating the United States from the final statement. Carney plans to meet early Monday with Trump, a Canadian official said. Carney met in Ottawa on Sunday with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer ahead of the summit. The ongoing Ukraine-Russia war will also be up for discussion at the G7. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is among the invited guests and hopes to speak to Trump, who publicly derided him when they met at the White House on February 28. Trump had hoped to force Ukraine into a quick deal with Russia but he has grown frustrated after President Vladimir Putin refused US-led appeals for at least a temporary truce. Trump spoke by telephone with Putin on Saturday, both about the Israel-Iran conflict and Ukraine. French President Macron, however, cast doubt on Putin serving as a Middle East mediator and said he wanted to see if Trump would be willing to impose future sanctions on Russia. Macron headed to Kananaskis after stopping in Greenland, where he denounced Trump's threats to seize the Danish autonomous territory. 'That's not what allies do,' he said. Trump for his part will arrive at the summit after attending a military parade in Washington that coincided with his birthday, prompting nationwide protests over steps seen as increasingly authoritarian. Trade deadline looms European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also spoke by telephone Saturday with Trump and called for pressure on Russia over the Ukraine invasion. She again voiced hope for progress in trade talks. Trump, seeking a radical transformation of a global economic order centered on free trade, has vowed to slap sweeping tariffs on US friends and foes alike on July 9, a deadline he postponed once. Other leaders invited to the summit include Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as Canada hopes to reset ties. Trudeau had accused Modi's government of masterminding the assassination of a Sikh separatist in Canada, which expelled the Indian ambassador, prompting New Delhi to take punitive action of its own.
